'■  -1* 


REPLY 


OF  THE 


MISSIONARIES  AT  CONSTANTINOPLE, 


TO  THE  CHARGES  OF 


REV.  HORATIO  SOUTHGATE. 


Mr.  Southgate  and  the  Missionaries  at  Constantinople. 


A 


LETTER 


FROM  THE 


MISSIONARIES  AT  CONSTANTINOPLE, 


REPLY  TO  CHARGES 


BY  REV.  HORATIO  SOUTHGATE. 


BOSTON: 

PUBLISHED  BY  CROCKER  AND  BREWSTER, 
47,  Washington-slreet. 

1844. 


.r  r. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2020  with  funding  from 
Columbia  University  Libraries 


i 


https://archive.org/details/mrsouthgatemissiOOgood 


INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS. 


The  occasion  of  this  publication  will  be  seen  from  the 
following  statement.  At  the  meeting  of  the  American 
Board  of  Commissioners  for  Foreign  Missions  at  Roches¬ 
ter,  N.  Y.,  in  September,  1843,  allusion  was  made,  in 
the  Annual  Report,  to  embarrassments  at  Constantinople, 
occasioned  by  the  interference  of  “  individuals^  who  had 
imbibed  errors  which  now  threaten  the  peace  and  unity 
of  the  Episcopal  churches  of  England  and  America,” 
with  the  labors  and  influence  of  the  missionaries.  In  the 
discussions  upon  the  Report,  inquiries  were  made  as  to 
the  nature  of  this  interference,  and  the  persons  who  were 
the  authors  of  it.  The  reply  of  the  Secretary  to  whom 
the  inquiries  were  particularly  addressed,  was  variously 
reported  in  the  religious  newspapers,  and  gave  rise  to  the 
following  correspondence. 

Office  of  the  Foreign  Committee  of  the  Board 
of  Missions  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  New  York,  Oct.  5,  1843. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, — A  copy  of  the  New  York 
Evangelist”  of  the  21st  September  has  been  brought  to 
me,  which  contains  a  report  of  the  proceedings  of  the 
Thirty-^fourth  Annual  Meeting  of  the  American  Board, 


4 


held  at  the  city  of  Rochester ;  and  rny  attention  has  been 
called  to  a  passage  in  one  of  your  own  addresses,  which 
involves  very  serious  charges  against  our  missionary  to 
Constantinople.  The  passage  reads  thus  ; — “  The  Rev. 
Horatio  Southgate,  missionary  of  the  Episcopal  Society 
in  this  country,  has  co-operated  with  Mr.  Badger  in  all 
the  opposition  made  to  the  missionary  operations  of  the 
Board,  and  has,  as  far  as  his  influence  has  gone,  coincid¬ 
ed  with  the  Papal  missionaries.” 

Allow  me  very  respectfully  and  affectionately  to  in¬ 
quire,  whether  this  be  a  correct  report,  and  if  so,  upon  - 
what  grounds  you  have  felt  it  to  be  your  duty  to  bring 
so  grave  an  accusation.  You  will  of  course  see  the  great 
importance,  as  well  to  the  cause  of  our  missions,  as  to 
Mr.  Southgate,  that  this  should  be  examined,  and  I  can¬ 
not  doubt  your  readiness  to  impart  all  the  information  of 
which  you  are  possessed  in  regard  to  it. 

I  do  not  now  write  officially,  but  with  the  view  of  as¬ 
certaining  the  correctness  of  the  report,  and  the  authority 
upon  which  the  charges  are  made,  before  calling  the  at¬ 
tention  of  our  Committee  to  the  same. 

« 

I  am,  with  very  sincere  respect  and  regard,  yours, 

Pierre  P.  Irving, 

Secretary, 


Missionary  House,  Boston,  Oct.  7.  1843. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, — Your  letter  of  the  5th  was  re¬ 
ceived  yesterday.  How  far  the  newspaper  report  of  my 
remarks  at  Rochester  concerning  Mr.  Southgate  is  cor¬ 
rect,  you  will  perceive  by  what  follows. 

In  my  remarks  concerning  Mr.  Badger,  which  were 
made  in  reply  to  a  call  for  information  with  respect  to  his 


proceedings,  I  intimated  an  opinion  that,  in  the  inter¬ 
ference  with  our  labors  at  Constantinople,  he  was  not  the 
principal  agent. 

Dr.  T.,  of  Maine,  desired  to  know  to  what  other  ad¬ 
verse  influence  I  referred. 

To  this,  as  nearly  as  I  can  recollect,  I  replied,  that  as 
no  harm  could  come  from  the  truth,  I  would  frankly  say, 
that  I  referred  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Southgate,  a  missionary 
from  the  Episcopal  church  of  this  country.  Mr.  South- 
gate  had  unhappily  adopted  such  views  of  his  duty,  that 
he  felt  himself  at  liberty  to  co-operate  with  Mr.  Badger 
while  Mr.  B.  was  at  Constantinople,  and  had  acted  in 
opposition  to  our  missionaries  ;  and,  as  we  had  reason  to 
believe,  was  the  chief  cause  of  the  hostile  movement 
which  had  constrained  Mr.  Dwight  to  suspend,  for  a 
season,  his  meeting  for  preaching,  and  had  led  Mr. 
Hohannes  (then  present)  to  come  to  this  country. 

I  was  called  upon  unexpectedly,  and  made  my  remarks 
as  few  and  as  brief  as  possible.  Knowing  the  delicacy 
of  the  subject,  I  took  some  pains  to  remember  what  I 
said.  Though  1  made  repeated  reference  to  Papal  mis¬ 
sionaries  when  speaking  ot  Mr.  Badger,  I  do  not  think  I 
made  any  such  reference  when  speaking  of  Mr.  South- 
gate. 

You  will  perceive.  Dear  Sir,  that  mere  newspaper  re¬ 
ports  cannot  make  it  proper  for  us,  as  a  Missionary  Soci¬ 
ety,  to  go  into  a  formal  inculpation  to  your  Society  of  one 
of  its  missionaries,  because,  in  the  progress  of  our  discus¬ 
sions,  it  was  necessary  for  us  to  say  somewhat  to  his  dis¬ 
advantage.  We  regretted  the  necessity  as  much  as  it  is 
possible  for  any  one  to  do,  while  we  believed  in  its  exist¬ 
ence. 

I  could  do  no  less,  however,  in  reply  to  your  fraternal 

inquiries,  than  tell  you  frankly  what  I  believe  myself  to 

have  said.  I  do  it  as  an  act  of  Christian  courtesv,  and 

•/  * 


6 


shall  alwa^/s  be  happy  to  do  what  1  can  to  avoid  every¬ 
thing  like  controversy  with  you  and  your  respected  asso¬ 
ciates  in  the  work  of  missions. 

I  am,  Dear  Sir,  very  respectfully  and  truly  yours, 

Rufus  Anderson, 

Secretary. 

With  this  corrected  statement  of  Dr.  Anderson’s  re¬ 
marks  before  him,  Mr.  Southgate,  who  was  then  at  Con¬ 
stantinople,  addressed  a  letter,  on  the  4th  of  December, 
1843,  to  the  missionaries  of  the  American  Board  in  that 

I 

city,  which  led  to  a  correspondence  to  which  there  will 
be  a  reference  in  the  latter  part  of  this  pamphlet.  On 
the  9lh  of  January,  1844,  he  addressed  a  “Letter  to 
Members  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States.”  This  letter  was  printed  as  a  “  Vindi¬ 
cation  of  the  Rev.  Horatio  Southgate,”  with  two  appended 
letters,  and  has  been  extensively  circulated.  These  let¬ 
ters  contain,  besides  the  “  Vindication,”  a  series  of 
charges  against  the  American  Board  and  its  missionaries 
of  the  gravest  character. 

So  lar  as  the  American  Board  is  concerned,  no  answer 
has  been  given  to  these  charges,  except  in  the  following 
declaration  of  Dr.  Anderson  at  the  Annual  Meeting  at 
Worcester,  in  September  last.  In  reply  to  an  inquiry 
publicly  made  by  a  member,  Dr.  A.  said ; — “  I  have  read 
the  pamphlet  of  Mr.  Southgate  since  my  return  from  the 
Mediterranean,  and  feel  bound,  by  a  regard  for  justice,  to 
say,  that,  so  far  as  it  affects  the  Missionaries  or  the  Board 
unfavorably,  I  believe  it  to  be  untrue  throughout.” 
In  this  denial  of  the  charges  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hawes,  who 
had  spent  more  than  a  month  with  Dr.  Anderson  at  Con¬ 
stantinople,  fully  concurred.  Probably  no  other  reply  than 
this  will  be  thought  necessary. 

To  the  greater  part  of  the  charges  against  themselves, 


7 


the  missionaries  have  replied  in  a  letter  dated  Constan¬ 
tinople,  Sept.  4,  1844.  It  has  been  thought  due  to  them 
to  publish  this  communication,  with  extracts  from  letters 
previously  received.  It  will  be  seen,  that  it  was  written 
only  in  reply  to  Mr.  Southgate’s  “Letter  to  the  Members 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.”  The  Appendix,  in 
which  Mr.  Southgate  gives  his  account  of  the  causes 
leading  to  the  suspension  of  Mr.  Dwight’s  preaching  ser¬ 
vice,  they  had  not  received,  as  only  “the  letter”  was 
sent  by  the  overland  mail.  The  facts  on  this  point  had 
been  previously  communicated  to  the  Board,  in  two  let¬ 
ters, — one  written  immediately  after  the  event  occurred, 
and  the  other  in  connection  with  the  correspondence 
between  Mr.  S.  and  themselves  already  alluded  to. 
Both  of  these  letters,  as  well  as  the  Reply,  had  the 
sanction  of  all  the  missionaries  residing  at  the  station. 
Extracts  from  these  letters  are  appended  to  their  more 
recent  communication.  In  compliance  with  the  wishes 
of  the  missionaries,  two  or  three  extracts  are  added 
from  other  letters  approved  and  sanctioned  by  the  station. 

For  the  facts  asserted  in  these  letters,  the  missionaries 
are  responsible.  For  the  selection  and  arrangement  of 
them,  the  editor  only  is  responsible,  who  is  in  no  way 
officially  connected  wdth  the  Board. 

Boston,  Nov.  1,  1844. 


,  ,  '  r 


I 


•  I 


REPLY 


OF  THE 

MISSIONARIES  AT  CONSTANTINOPLE. 


Constantinople,  Sept.  4,  1844. 

Dear  Sir: — Your  letter  of  July  15th  addressed  to  our  station, 
and  the  printed  “  Vindication  ”  of  Mr.  Southgate  enclosed  in  it, 
were  duly  received.  We  could  not,  however,  have  replied  to  you, 
as  you  requested,  so  that  our  answer  would  reach  you  before  the 
meeting  of  the  Board,  even  if  it  had  been  possible  for  us  to  for¬ 
ward  our  communication  by  the  post  next  following  the  receipt  of 
your  letter.  As  it  is,  we  have  made  the  greatest  despatch  con¬ 
sistent  with  our  other  duties,  and  a  careful  examination  of  the 
subject  before  us. 

In  the  remarks  which  follow  on  Mr.  Southgate’s  pamphlet,  we 
wish  you  to  understand  that  we  notice  only  those  points  in  which  we 
are  properly  concerned.  We  do  not  acknowledge  the  slightest  re¬ 
sponsibility  in  regard  to  the  words  and  actions  of  others,  whether 
they  be  correspondents  or  reporters  of  newspapers,  missionaries  of 
other  stations,  or  any  other  class  of  persons  ;  nor  is  it  our  province 
to  explain  the  Reports  of  the  Board,  or  any  of  your  own  declara¬ 
tions,  referred  to  by  Mr.  Southgate.  Nor  shall  we  apply  to  our¬ 
selves  any  of  those  general  charges,  found  in  his  ‘‘  Vindication,”  of 
‘‘vituperation”  and  “abuse”  cast  upon  him,  until  he  distinctly 
specifies  what  was  done,  and  that  we  were  the  authors  of  it  ;  in 
which  case  we  shall  give  to  those  portions  of  his  pamphlet  a  due 
share  of  notice.  You  will  perceive  that  we  refer,  in  this  letter, 
only  to  the  main  body  of  the  “  Vindication,”  as  only  that,  with  the 
first  page  of  the  Appendix,  has  yet  reached  us.*  We  cannot,  of 


^  Sent  by  mail,  overlarul. — Ed. 

1 


6 


course,  now  decide  whether  an  additional  communication  on  the 
appendix  will  be  called  for.  We  have  one  more  prefatory  remark, 
to  which  we  beg  leave  to  call  your  particular  attention,  and  that 
is,  that  there  are  several  points  in  the  pamphlet  before  us  upon 
which  we  should  have  dwelt  much  more  at  large,  had  we  not 
already  fully  written  to  you  on  these  same  topics  ;  and  we  would 
here  request  that  you  will  take  the  trouble  to  reperuse  the  docu¬ 
ments  already  in  your  hands,  that  you  may  have  the  subject  fully 
before  you. 

With  these  remarks  we  now  proceed  to  a  notice  of  Mr.  South¬ 
gate’s  Vindication.” 

1.  He  represents  us  as  being  hostile  to  Episcopal  missions,  as 
such.  In  proof  of  this,  he  urges,  (p.  21),  that  we  stated  to 
Dr.  Robertson  and  himself,  in  a  formal  conference,  called  by  our¬ 
selves,  our  objection  to  the  principle  of  bringing  their  church  to 
light,  before  the  oriental  communions.  We  utterly  deny  having 
ever  cherished  or  expressed  any  more  objection  to  having  the 
Episcopal  church  brought  to  light  before  the  people,  than  to  hav¬ 
ing  the  Presbyterian,  Congregational,  Baptist,  or  any  other  of  the 
churches  into  which  Protestant  Christians  are  divided.  We  have 
objected  and  we  do  object  to  all  sectarian  movements  among  the 
eastern  Christians,  and  we  may  have  said  at  the  interview  alluded 
to  with  Dr.  Robertson  and  Mr.  Southgate,  that  in  our  view  it  is 
exceedingly  undesirable  to  thrust  before  these  eastern  Christians, 
— for  whose  conversion  from  a  formal  to  a  spiritual  religion  we  are 
all  professing  to  labor, — a  view  of  the  various  questions  of  mere 
form  and  ceremony,  and  of  church  order  and  government,  which 
divide  Protestant  Christians  ;  and  that  if  one  body  of  Christians 
were  thus  to  bring  forward  the  peculiarities  of  their  own  church, 
others  would,  as  an  inevitable  consequence,  feel  obliged  to  bring 
forward  theirs  in  self-defence.  The  conference  was  not  called, 
however,  for  the  purpose  of  discussing  this  subject,  though  that 
seems  to  be  implied  by  Mr.  Southgate’s  language  ;  but  it  was 
called  chiefly  for  the  purpose  of  asking  an  explanation  of  those 
passages  in  the  Instructions  to  Dr.  R.  and  Mr.  S.  referred  to  on 
page  19th  of  the  “  Vindication.” 

That  the  missionaries  of  the  American  Board  have  no  hostility  to 
Episcopal  missionaries,  as  such,  is  sufficiently  evident  from  the  facts, 
that  different  individuals  among  us  have  often  been  very  intimately 
associated  with  missionaries  of  the  Church  of  England  ;  that  we 
have  never  had  the  slightest  difficulty  with  any  such,  so  long  as 
their  great  object  has  been  to  preach  Christ  and  him  crucified,  and 
labor  for  the  souls  of  men  ;  and  that,  in  some  Instances,  stated  meet¬ 
ings  for  prayer  and  mutual  consultation  have  been  held  with  such,  for 
years,  without  any  interruption  of  harmony.  Indeed  we  may  appeal 
to  our  earliest  intercourse  with  Mr.  Southgate  himself  as  evidence 


i 


on  this  point.  He  will  bear  us  witness,  that  we  lived  with  him 
on  terms  of  the  most  friendly  Christian  fellowship,  and  expressed 
to  him  our  entire  assurance  that  if  he  carne  to  labor  permanently 
at  Constantinople,  we  should  have  no  difficulty  in  acting,  each  in 
his  proper  sphere,  in  perfect  harmony  and  christian  love.  This 
was  the  true  desire  and  purpose  of  our  hearts  ;  and  our  confidence 
that  we  should  thus  live  with  Mr.  Southgate,  was  based  upon  the 
fact  that  he  had  manifested,  up  to  that  time,  no  other  than  the  most 
catholic  spirit.  He  had  sat  down  to  the  communion  table  with 
us,  receiving  the  sacrament  from  our  hands,  and  also  taking  part 
with  U5  in  the  administration  of  it  ;  he  had  attended  public  ser¬ 
vice  regularly  with  us  on  the  Sabbath,  sometimes  preaching  for 
us,  and  sometimes  listening  to  our  preaching  ;  and  often  had  he 
bent  the  knee  together  with  us  before  the  throne  of  grace  in 
prayer,  he  taking  his  turn,  in  a  most  edifying  manner,  though 
without  book  or  stated  form.  In  short,  he  seemed  to  make  little 
or  nothing  of  those  differences  which  separate  evangelical  Chris¬ 
tians,  and  to  be  determined  to  know  nothing  but  Jesus  Christ  and 
him  crucified.  With  persons  of  such  a  spirit  we  have  never  had 
the  shadow  of  a  controversy,  nor  would  it  ever  have  occurred  to 
us  to  ask  the  question,  whether  such  an  individual  was  called 
Episcopalian,  Presbyterian,  or  by  some  other  name.  True,  when 
in  a  special  conference,  called  by  Mr.  Southgate,  before  his  first 
return  to  America,  he  formally  and  candidly  asked  our  opinion  as 
to  the  expediency  of  establishing  an  Episcopal  mission  to  the 
Greeks  in  this  city,  we  as  candidly  told  him  that,  as  we  had 
already  made  a  beginning,  we  felt  that  it  would  be  better  for  the 
cause  at  large  that  the  work  should,  if  possible,  be  under  one 
direction,  and  that  we  feared  that,  if  other  societies  stepped  in, 
the  unity  of  plan  and  labor  would  be  destroyed,  and  there  would 
be  danger  of  such  a  clashing  of  measures  as  would  be  prejudicial 
to  the  work.  Of  this  we  had,  unhappily,  an  example  before  us 
at  Athens,  to  which  we  referred  him.  At  the  same  time,  we  gave 
Mr.  Southgate  distinctly  to  understand  that  we  did  not  pretend  to 
set  up  any  claim  to  the  sole  right  of  laboring  here,  among  the 
Greeks,  (for  the  question  related  to  them  alone),  on  the  ground  of 
previous  occupancy  ;  but,  as  he  had  asked  of  us  our  opinion  on 
the  subject,  we  felt  it  to  be  our  duty  frankly  to  express  it. 

He  then  informed  us  that  he  had  no  doubt  an  Episcopal  mission 
would  be  established  here  among  the  Greeks,  and  he  proposed  that 
we  should  relinquish  the  whole  Greek  field  in  Constantinople  to 
them,  and  write  to  our  Society,  recommending  that  an  arrangement 
be  made  between  our  Board  and  his,  that  our  labors  should  be 
confined  to  the  Armenians,  and  theirs  to  the  Greeks.  This  we 
declined  doing  on  the  ground  that  it  did  not  belong  to  us  to  inter¬ 
fere  with  such  questions,  which  the  Boards  at  home  must  decide 


8 


for  themselves.  Our  objection  to  having  the  Episcopal  Board 
open  a  mission  here,  arose  not  from  any  hostility  to  them  as  Epis- 
copalians,  for  we  should  have  expressed  ourselves  precisely  in  a 
similar  manner,  had  the  proposition  come  from  the  Presbyterian  or 
Baptist  Board.* 

We  have  stated  on  what  pleasant  terms  of  Christian  intercourse 
we  lived  with  Mr.  S.  during  his  first  visit  to  this  capital.  He, 
however,  returned  here  from  America  an  entirely  changed  man. 
We  were  prepared  to  receive  him  with  the  utmost  Christian  cor¬ 
diality,  and  live  with  him  on  the  same  terms  of  the  most  perfect 
peace  as  before.  But  we  found  him  entirely  metamorphosed  by 
his  visit  to  America,  and  determined  to  act  on  the  most  exclusive 
high  church  principles.  As  a  man,  he  professed  to  be  ready  to 
live  with  us  on  terms  of  civility  ;  but  as  a  Christian,  and  especially 
as  a  Christian  minister,  he  seemed  to  wish  to  have  no  visible  rela¬ 
tions  with  us.  He  would  not  consent  even  to  have  a  prayer¬ 
meeting  in  common,  which  we  formally  proposed,  lest  it  should 
be  supposed  by  others  that  he  recognized  us  as  true  ministers  of 
Christ,  equally  with  himself.  We  are  willing  to  leave  it  with 
candid  men  to  decide  who  first  changed  his  principles  of  action, 
and  took  the  first  steps  in  the  course  that  leads  to  alienation  and 
hostility.  Of  the  subsequent  steps  of  Mr.  Southgate  in  this 
course,  we  shall  have  occasion  hereafter  to  speak. 

2.  Mr.  Southgate  represents  us  as  being  afraid  to  discuss  the 
subject  of  Episcopacy  here  on  the  ground  ;  and  he  says  that  if 
we  would  oppose  them  fairly  in  the  field,  instead  of  circulating 
calumnies  at  home,  it  would  be  all  they  could  ask.”  We  shall 
say  nothing  of  the  calumnies  here  spoken  of,  until  we  are  informed 
specifically  what  they  are  ;  and  as  to  our  being  afraid  fairly  to 
face  the  subject  of  Episcopacy  and  discuss  it  before  these  eastern 
people,  we  are  not  conscious  of  having  ever  yet  been  deterred  by 
any  such  motive.  We  gather  from  what  Mr.  S.  says  on  these 
topics,  that  he  would  be  heartily  glad  to  have  us  spend  our  time 
in  disputing  with  him  about  church  government,  liturgies,  etc., 
before  these  poor,  eastern  Christians,  who  are  already  crushed 
almost  to  death  by  the  enormous  weight  of  their  forms  and  cere¬ 
monies,  instead  of  preaching  to  them  the  pure  Gospel  of  Christ ; 
that  thus  he  might  have  fuller  freedom  to  oppose  us  and  our  labors 
here  ;  and  that  he  would  also  wish  that  we  might  never  utter  a 
word  on  the  subject  of  his  doings,  in  our  communications  to  you, 
lest,  in  some  way,  his  conduct  should  be  reported  to  the  evangel¬ 
ical  portion  of  his  own  church,  and  the  permanence  of  his  mission 
here  be  thereby  endangered.  But  we  are  determined,  as  far  as  in 
us  lies,  not  to  gratify  him,  in  either  of  these  particulars.  We  have 


*  See  Note  1. 


9 


uniformly  endeavored  to  act  upon  the  principle  of  avoiding  as 
much  as  possible,  in  our  intercourse  with  the  people,  discussions 
about  forms  and  shadows,  and  have  endeavored  to  lead  them 
directly  to  the  great  and  saving  truths  of  the  Gospel ;  and,  by  the 
grace  of  God  helping  us,  this  course  we  hope  to  continue  to  pur¬ 
sue.  True,  Mr.  Southgate’s  course  here  has  made  our  efforts 
more  or  less  “  anti-episcopal,”  in  spite  of  ourselves.  He  has 
been  busily  employed  in  “  representing  his  church,”  and  in  in¬ 
forming  the  people  that  we  “  are  opposed  to  bishops,  confirmation, 
and  liturgies,^’  and  a  very  natural  consequence  has  been,  that  we 
have  been  called  upon,  an  hundred  times  oftener  than  we  other¬ 
wise  should  have  been,  to  explain  to  persons  inquiring  the  simple 
mode  of  our  own  church  organizations,  and  the  reasons  upon  which 
it  is  founded.  This  we  ordinarily  do  in  as  few  words  as  possible, 
and  we  hasten  to  more  important  matters.  We  confess  that  Mr. 
Southgate  has  succeeded  so  far  as  this  in  making  our  labors  anti- 
episcopal,  and  this  is  precisely  in  accordance  with  a  prediction  of 
yours  in  reference  to  another  mission,  quoted  in  the  Vindication” 
on  the  ninth  page ;  but  we  still  conscientiously  adhere  to  our  rule 
of  avoiding  as  much  as  possible  all  discussion  on  these  subjects. 
As  to  the  other  part  of  Mr.  Southgate’s  desire,  we  some  time 
ago  gave  him  formal  notice,  by  letter,  that  whenever  he  should 
oppose  or  hinder  us  in  any  way,  we  should  feel  ourselves  in  duty 
bound  to  report  him  to  our  Committee,  just  as  we  report  any  other 
obstacle  that  is  thrown  in  the  way  of  our  labors,  from  whatever 
quarter  it  comes,  whether  it  has  a  Turkish,  Jewish,  or  nominally 
Christian  origin.  Nor  do  we  expect  to  be  prevented  from  this,  by 
his  unwillingness  to  be  reported. 

3.  Mr.  Southgate  accuses  us  of  making  the  most  studied  and 
laborious  efforts  to  conceal  the  fact  that  we  are  not  Episcopalians, 
and  also  of  descending  to  the  practice  of  various  arts  to  make 
the  impression  on  the  people  that  we  are  actually  Episcopalians. 
This  charge,  substantially,  has  before  been  publicly  made  by  Mr.  S., 
and  we  have  already  furnished  you  with  a  satisfactory  refutation 
of  it.  It  is  based  on  the  supposition  that  we  see,  as  clearly  as 
Mr.  Southgate  seems  to  do,  the  superior  advantages  of  Episcopal 
missionaries  for  laboring  among  these  eastern  churches,  over 
Presbyterians  and  Congregationalists  ;  whereas  we  regard  his 
views  on  this  subject  as  altogether  visionary.  If  Episcopal  mis¬ 
sionaries  are  consistent  Protestants^ — willing  to  come  out  before 
these  people  and  preach  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Reforma¬ 
tion,  such  as  justification  by  faith  alone  ivithout  the  deeds  of  the 
law,  and  regeneration  properly  explained, — they  will  as  surely  and 
as  speedily  be  spurned  by  these  eastern  churches  as  subverters  of 
the  true  faith,  and  as  dangerous  heretics  with  whom  “  an  intimate 
fellowship  and  connection  is  impracticable,”  as  any  of  their  Pres- 


10 


byterian  or  Congregational  brethren.  The  fact  is,  the  subject  of 
the  form  of  ecclesiastical  government  is  one  which  has  never 
been  agitated  in  these  eastern  churches,  and  about  which  they  feel 
no  particular  interest.  True,  they  are  Episcopalians  ;  and,  no 
doubt,  were  the  question  ever  to  come  before  them  of  changing 
their  form  of  government,  many  would  be  found  who  would  strenu¬ 
ously  plead  for  the  Episcopal  system.  But  what  we  mean  to 
assert  is,  that  we  have  never  seen  among  the  eastern  churches  any 
disposition  to  agitate  the  question,  or  any  such  stress  laid  upon  it 
as  by  some  Episcopalians  in  England  and  America.  There  it  is 
made,  by  a  certain  class,  a  test  question,  by  which  the  true  church 
of  Christ  is  to  be  known,  but  it  has  never  yet  been  magnified  into 
a  question  of  such  importance  in  the  East.  In  the  Armenian 
church,  we  have  indeed  been  asked  many  times  by  bishops  and 
other  high  ecclesiastics,  as  to  the  form  of  government  of  our 
church;  but  never,  in  a  single  instance,  has  the  motive  appeared 
to  be  to  ascertain  whether  we  are  entitled  to  be  considered  as 
belonging  to  the  true  church  of  Christ  or  not ;  but  merely  to 
satisfy  a  very  natural  curiosity  about  the  institutions  of  a  country 
so  distant  and  so  little  known  as  America.  And  when  we  have 
explained  to  them  our  mode  of  ordination  by  presbyteries  or  coun¬ 
cils,  they  have  never  questioned  the  validity  of  such  ordination. 
So  far  is  Episcopacy  from  being  the  test  of  a  true  church  with 
them,  that  they  are  quite  accustomed  to  the  sight  of  churches 
with  bishops  and  confirmation  and  liturgies,”  which,  notwith¬ 
standing,  are  regarded  by  them  as  in  the  greatest  heresies.  Thus 
the  Greek  church  regards  the  Armenian,  and  thus  the  Armenian 
regards  the  Nestorian  ;  although  no  man  who  believes  in  the  apos¬ 
tolic  succession,  can  deny  it  to  either  of  these  churches. 

The  fact  is,  that  with  them  the  tests  of  orthodoxy  are  some¬ 
thing  very  different.  Among  themselves  the  great  questions  of 
fellowship  or  non-fellowship  are,  “  Do  you  believe  in  the  two 
natures  of  Christ  ?  or  only  in  one  nature  ?  ”  ‘‘  Do  you  use 

leavened  or  unleavened  bread  in  the  sacrament  ?  ”  Do  you 
make  the  sign  of  the  cross  with  two  fingers,  or  three,  or  one 
And,  in  reference  to  representatives  or  missionaries  from  churches 
in  America, — besides  the  above,  other  questions  of  graver  interest 
would  be  asked,  were  any  “intimate  fellowship  and  connection” 
proposed,  such  as,  “  Do  you  acknowledge  the  intercession  of  the 
saints  ?  ”  “  Do  you  worship  the  Virgin  ^lary  ?  ”  “  Do  you  hold 

to  the  worship  of  pictures  and  of  the  cross  ?  ”  “  Do  you  believe 

the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  and  praying  for  the  dead  ?  ” 
These  are  the  great  points  in  the  view  of  oriental  Christians  gen¬ 
erally,  before  which  the  question  of  the  form  of  church  govern¬ 
ment  dwindles  away  to  a  mere  point,  a  thing  of  the  least  possible 
consequence.  The  moment  an  Episcopal  missionary  avows  him- 


11 


sell  on  these  and  similar  points  as  not  symbolizing  with  these 
eastern  churches,  that  avowal  stamps  him  as  a  Protestant;  and 
his  plea  of  having  three  orders  of  the  clergy,  of  having  a  litur¬ 
gy  ”  and  “  confirmation,'’  or  even  of  keeping  all  the  feasts  and 
fasts  of  the  church,  will  not  save  him  from  their  anathemas.  It  is 
evident,  therefore,  that  all  Mr.  Southgate’s  boasted  superiority 
over  non-episcopal  missionaries  must  go  for  nothing,  unless  he 
practises  a  most  studied  concealment  of  his  sentiments  on  the 
above  and  similar  points.  We  have  already  stated  some  facts  to 
you  in  previous  communications,  to  which  we  would  again  refer 
you,  which  afford  us  painful  evidence  that  Mr.  Southgate,  instead 
of  protesting  against  the  errors  of  these  churches,  as  he  professes 
to  have  done,  has  suffered  himself  to  plead  for  them,  and  even  to 
practice  them.  He  himself  told  a  pious  native  friend  of  ours,  that  he 
sometimes  goes  to  the  Greek  church,  and  there  makes  the  sign  of 
the  cross,  and  performs  the  other  ceremonies as  the  Greeks  do. 
And  we  have  been  informed  more  than  once,  by  the  individuals 
themselves  to  whom  he  gave  the  advice,  that  he  has  instructed 
the  people  to  obey  their  bishops  in  every  thing,  even  when  com¬ 
manded  to  how  down  before  pictures^  and  pray  through  the  inter- 
cession  of  the  Virgin  Mary  and  the  saints.  An  Episcopal  mis¬ 
sionary,  whose  conscience  will  permit  him  to  pursue  this  course, 
may,  indeed,  acquire  a  greater  influence  over  the  bishops  and 
other  ecclesiastics  of  these  churches  than  a  Presbyterian,  and  Con¬ 
gregational  missionary  can  expect  to  do,  who  protests  against  all 
these  corruptions  ;  but  it  will  obviously  be  an  influence  for  evil, 
and  not  for  good,  and  it  can  never  be  urged  as  an  evidence  of  the 
superior  advantages  of  episcopal  over  non-episcopal  missionaries 
in  laboring  for  the  reform  of  these  eastern  communions.  Our 
views  on  this  question  have  always  been,  substantially,  as  above 
expressed,  and  of  course  we  could  never  have  had  a  motive  to 
adopt  that  course  of  studied  concealment  which  Mr.  S.  charges 
upon  us.  True,  we  have  ever  avoided  introducing  questions  of 
mere  form  ;  yet  we  have,  from  the  very  beginning  of  our  inter¬ 
course  with  eastern  Christians,  always  most  cheerfully  explained 
the  manner  in  which  our  churches  are  organized,  whenever  we 
have  been  inquired  of  on  the  subject,  and  this  has  happened 
probably  some  hundreds  of  times. 

We  recollect  distinctly,  that  on  one  occasion,  when  a  conference 
was  held  between  Dr.  Robertson  and  Mr.  Southgate  and  our¬ 
selves,  the  former  expressed  himself  as  entirely  incredulous  in 
regard  to  an  assertion  of  ours,  that  we  do  not  labor  to  propagate 
our  opinions  on  the  mode  of  church  government  among  this 
people,  and  Mr.  Southgate  seemed  fully  to  sympathize  with  him 
in  his  doubts  on  this  point.  But  now  Mr.  S.  comes  out  before 
the  public  in  America,  and  declares  that  we  have  always  studiously 


12 


endeavored  to  conceal  the  fact  that  we  are  not  Episcopalians  ! 
Does  he  really  believe  his  own  statements  on  this  subject,  or  has 
this  story  been  invented  merely  to  help  him  out  in  his  Vindication  ?  ” 
But  we  have  still  greater  difficulty  in  explaining  satisfactorily 
some  subsequent  representations  of  Mr.  S.,  without  impeaching 
his  honesty  of  purpose  and  his  regard  to  justice  and  to  truth.  On 
the  twenty-fourth  page  of  his  “  Vindication,”  he  remarks  that 
“  it  is  a  misfortune  for  Congregationalists  to  be  here.”  It  may  be 
a  misfortune  to  him  and  his  sectarian  plans  that  we  are  here ; 
but  we  believe  it  to  be  a  rich  blessing  to  the  people,  and  we  can 
never  cease  to  praise  God  for  having  brought  us  here  in  his  good 
providence,  and  for  having  blessed,  in  so  distinguished  a  manner, 
labors  so  unworthy.  He  then  proceeds  to  say  that  he  believes 
all  of  us  would  heartily  concur  in  the  sentiment  once  expressed 
to  him  by  one  of  our  most  useful  missionaries,  namely,  ‘  1  have 
often  ivished  that  I  were  an  Episcopalian.  I  could  labor  to  much 
greater  advantage,  if  I  were  one.^  ”  Who  this  missionary  was 
he  does  not  inform  us,  and  of  course  we  cannot,  as  we  would  like 
to  do,  by  inquiring  of  the  individual  ascertain  whether  or  not 
Mr.  Southgate  had  not  misunderstood  his  meaning.  But  Mr.  S. 
declares  that  he  believes  “  all  of  us  would  heartily  concur  in  this 
sentiment.”  We  ought  not,  perhaps,  to  hold  Mr.  S.  as  strictly 
responsible  for  all  that  his  words  imply  in  this  case.  He  was 
writing  under  a  degree  of  excitement,  in  which  he  might  very 
naturally  be  betrayed  into  the  use  of  expressions  not  strictly 
accordant  with  soberness  and  truth.  But  we  would  like  to  appeal 
to  him  now,  in  his  cool  moments,  and  ask  him  if  he  really  believes 
his  own  assertion  ?  We  cannot  think  that  he  does.  He  knows 
us  too  well  to  be  so  deceived  in  regard  to  our  true  sentiments. 
And  besides,  he  must,  when  soberly  reflecting  on  the  subject,  per¬ 
ceive  that  if  we  all  were  heartily  ”  wishing  that  we  were 
Episcopalians  f  and  if  we  conscientiously  believed  that  we  could 
labor  to  much  greater  advantage  if  we  weref  it  certainly  would 
happen  that  some  of  us  at  least,  not  to  say  all,  would  imitate  his 
example,  and  leaving  our  own  churches  would  speedily  find  our 
way  into  the  Episcopal  fold.  We  suppose  that  we  should  be  as 
readily  received  as  he  was,  and  what  should  hinder  us  from  going, 
if  we  are  all  heartily  ”  wishing  it  ?  And  what  prevented  the 
individual  to  wdiom  he  alludes  from  becoming  an  Episcopalian,  if 
that  was  the  true  desire  of  his  heart  ? 

In  this  connection  we  cannot  resist  the  temptation  to  insert  the 
testimony  of  one  of  the  most  distinguished  of  the  English  Epis¬ 
copal  missionaries  ever  sent  to  these  countries.  He  once  remarked 
to  one  of  our  number  that  he  rejoiced,  and  acknowledged  the  good 
providence  of  God  in  it,  that  the  missionaries  from  America  to 
these  dead  churches,  were  not  Episcopal.  “  You,”  said  he,  “ 


are 


13 


as  free  as  air.  You  stand  upon  the  Bible  alone  ;  but  we  are  fet¬ 
tered  by  canons  and  rules,  and  have  a  great  many  other  things  to 
think  of  besides  the  Bible.”  It  is,  indeed,  very  sad  when  a  mis¬ 
sionary  in  these  countries  is  obliged  to  represent  ‘‘  My  church  ;  ” 
when  he  feels  bound,  whatever  else  he  may  neglect,  not  to  neglect 

My  church.’’  Why  !  the  poor,  perishing  people  of  these  coun¬ 
tries  have  done  nothing  for  ages,  but  extol,  each  in  his  own  dia¬ 
lect,  “  My  church.”  And  is  it  not  high  time  that  somebody 
should  come  here,  and,  for  once,  turn  away  their  thoughts  from  this 
everlasting  figment  of  ‘‘'My  church  1”  Is  it  not  high  time  that 
they  should  at  length  begin  to  think  whether  Christ  himself  has 
not  a  church  somewhere  in  the  world,  to  which  it  would  be  a  great 
privilege  to  belong? 

But  we  have  not  yet  done  with  Mr.  Southgate’s  vindication. 
There  are  still  graver  charges,  under  the  head  of  concealment, 
which  we  are  called  upon  to  notice.  He  says  (p.  24),  that  we 
have  “  so  far  concealed  our  real  character,  that  in  this  city,  where 
^  our  mission  has  been  established  some  thirteen  years,  the  impression 

STILL  PREVAILS  GENERALLY,  AMONG  THE  ARMENIANS,  THAT  THE 

Congregational  missionaries  are  clergymen  of  the  English 

CHURCH,  AND  I  AM  WELL  ASSURED,  THAT  TILL  WITHIN  TWO  OR 
THREE  YEARS,  THEY  WERE  ALL  SUPPOSED  TO  BE  BiSHOPS.  ThE 
impression  has  been  strengthened  by  THEIR  ADOPTING  OUR 
CLERICAL  DRESS,  USING  THE  PRAYER-BOOK,  MAKING  THE  SIGN  OF 
THE  CROSS  IN  BAPTISM,  AND  OTHER  SUCH  LIKE  PRACTICES,  UN¬ 
KNOWN  TO  CONGREGATIONALISTS  AT  HOME.” 

Here  is  a  most  serious  accusation,  deeply  affecting  our  character 
as  Christians,  and  honest  men  ;  which,  if  true,  ought  to  banish 
us  at  once  from  the  missionary  field,  and  disgrace  us  forever.  It 
amounts  to  nothing  less  than  this,  that,  for  a  long  course  of  years, 
we  have  studiously  endeavored,  by  various  deceptive  arts,  to  make 
and  strengthen  the  impression,  that  we  are  clergymen  of  the  Eng¬ 
lish  church.  And  it  is  subsequently  represented  that  the  secret  of 
all  our  dislike  to  the  system  of  the  Episcopal  missionaries  in  this 
country  is,  that  by  their  coming  here,  and  representing  their 
church,  our  fraud  has  been  detected,  and  our  true  characters 
made  known.  It  is  evident  that  Mr.  Southgate  intended  the  sen¬ 
tence  above  quoted  as  the  clinching  argument  of  his  book,  and 
he  has  made  it  prominent  by  staring  capitals,  so  as  to  make  the 
greatest  possible  impression  on  the  minds  of  his  readers.  And  he 
well  knew  that  those  for  whose  special  perusal  he  wrote  these 
pages,  could  generally  have  no  other  means  of  understanding  or 
explaining  his  representations,  than  what  is  furnished  in  his  own 
book.  He  therefore  wished  them  to  believe  that  we  habitually 
wear  the  episcopal  clerical  dress  in  performing  religious  services, 
and  use  the  prayer-book,  and  make  the  sign  of  the  cross  in  bap- 

2 


14 


tism,  and  perform  other  such  like  practices, for  the  distinct 
purpose  of  making  the  impression  on  the  Armenians  that  we 
belong  to  the  English  church.  The  whole  force  of  his  charge 
against  us  depends  upon  the  two  lacts  that  we  do  these  things 
habitually,  and  with  special  reference  to  the  jlrmenians.  If  it 
could  be  shown  that  ordinarily  we  appear  before  the  people,  in 
conducting  religious  services,  without  any  clerical  dress,  and  that 
only  now  and  then,  usually  at  long  intervals,  we  are  seen  with 
the  black  gown,  this  would  make  it  sufficiently  evident  that  our 
object  was  not  to  deceive  the  people,  by  the  use  of  the  episcopal 
robes,  into  a  belief  that  we  are  Episcopalians,  for  then  we  should 
take  good  care  never  to  appear  without  such  robes,  whenever  it 
was  canonical  to  wear  them.  And  if  it  could  be  shown  that,  in 
our  ordinary  Sabbath  services,  no  prayer-book  is  ever  seen,  but 
that,  on  certain  other  occasions,  sometimes  a  few  prayers  have 
been  read,  by  individuals  among  us,  from  that  book,  this  would  be 
satisfactory  evidence  that, — whatever  else  our  motive  might  be, — 
in  this  occasional  and  partial  use  of  the  episcopal  liturgy,  it  cer¬ 
tainly  was  not  to  make  the  impression  that  we  are  ourselves  Epis¬ 
copalians.  And  especially,  if  it  could  be  shown  that  never,  in  any 
single  instance,  in  our  ministrations  to  the  Armenians,  (upon  whom 
especially,  it  is  said,  we  wished  to  make  this  impression),  have  we 
used  either  the  clerical  robes,  the  prayer-book,  the  sign  of  the 
cross,  or  any  other  such  like  practices  of  Episcopacy,  we  think 
it  must  appear  transparently  evident  to  all,  that  the  charge  in 
question  must  have  originated  in  some  other  desire  than  that  of 
honestly  stating  “  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the 
truth.”  And  this  is  precisely  the  state  of  the  case.  The  adop¬ 
tion  by  us  of  the  episcopal  forms  alluded  to,  has  been  only  occa¬ 
sional  and  exceedingly  rare,  and  absolutely  never  in  any  Armenian 
service  ;  and  we  are  sure  that  no  reasonable  man,  when  made 
acquainted  with  the  facts,  can  possibly  understand  how  Mr.  South- 
gate  could  have  framed  such  a  charge  against  us,  as  he  has,  unless 
it  was  to  build  himself  up  in  a  false  position,  or  for  some  other 
equally  unworthy  purpose.  As  to  the  use  of  the  black  gown,  we 
would  in  the  first  place  say,  that  we  have  heard  for  the  first  time, 
through  Mr.  Southgate’s  pamphlet,  that  it  is  the  exclusive  preroga¬ 
tive  of  episcopal  clergymen  to  wear  this  dress,  in  performing  reli¬ 
gious  services.  We  suppose  Mr.  Southgate  knows,  that  your 
missionaries  in  Turkey,  belong  to  four  or  five  different  denomina¬ 
tions  of  Christians,  although  he  pertinaciously  calls  us  all  Congre- 
gationalists  ;  and  he  ought  also  to  know,  that,  in  at  least  one  of 
these,*  the  black  gown  is  as  constantly  and  universally  worn  as  it 
is  in  the  episcopal  church,  and  in  each  of  the  others  it  is  occasion¬ 
ally  worn,  even  to  the  very  ‘‘ Congregationalists.”  We  confess. 


*  The  Lutheran. — Ed. 


15 


that,  as  a  station,  we  do  possess  a  black  clerical  dress,  but  it  is  a 
IjUtheran  gown  ;  and  one  of  our  episcopal  brethren,  ivho  once 
wished  to  borrow  it,  refused  to  ivear  it,  when  he  saw  it,  because 
of  its  uncanonical  appearance !  He  decided  at  once,  that  it  was 
wholly  Lutheran  in  its  cut,^’  and  would  not  do  for  an  Episco¬ 
palian.  Tiiis  gown  we  never  use  except  on  funeral,  sometimes 
on  niarriage,  and  more  rarely  on  baptismal, '[occasions.  It  has  often 
been  said  by  the  people  of  this  country,  that  the  English  and 
Americans  have  no  religion  ;  and  as  one  evidence  of  this  it  is 
remarked,  that  when  any  one  dies  among  them,  he  is  buried  like  a 
dog,  no  clergyman  being  supposed  to  be  present  when  no  clerical 
dress  is  seen.  This  led  us  to  adopt  the  general  rule,  that  when¬ 
ever  we  are  called  upon  to  attend  the  funeral  of  a  Frank,  whether 
American  or  of  other  nation,  we  will  wear  the  clerical  gown.  In 
regard  to  other  services,  we  are  surrounded  by  people  of  many 
nations,  many  of  whom  are  Protestants,  such  as  English,  Scotch, 
Germans,  Danes,  Swedes,  &c.,  and  as  they  are  almost  universally 
accustomed  to  see  the  gown  worn  by  their  clergymen,  and  some¬ 
times  have  strong  feelings  on  the  subject,  we  ordinarily  conform  to 
their  wishes  in  our  ministrations  among  them.  Who  but  a  man  in 
Mr.  Southgate’s  peculiar  state  of  mind,  would  ever  think  of  charg¬ 
ing  us  with  attempting  to  pass  ourselves  off  as  Episcopalians, 
among  the  Armenians,  in  acting  as  we  have  done  on  this  subject 
among  the  Franks  ? 

In  regard  to  baptism,  we  have  sometimes  been  requested,  in  the 
absence  of  an  episcopal  clergyman,  to  administer  the  rite  to  the 
children  of  persons  belonging  to  the  English  church,  whose  predi¬ 
lections  were,  very  naturally,  in  favor  of  their  own  forms  ;  and  in 
consideration  of  their  wishes,  we  have  sometimes  used  the  form  of 
baptism  prescribed  in  the  prayer-book,  every  objectionable  pas¬ 
sage  being  conscientiously  omitted,  agreeably  to  the  judgment  of 
the  one  officiating  ;  and  if  the  sign  of  the  cross  has  been  made, 
according  to  this  form,  it  has  been  rarely  done,  and  out  of  regard 
to  the  preference  of  the  parents.  Multitudes  of  Armenians  have 
been  present  when  we  have  administered  this  ordinance,  as  we  are 
accustomed  to  do,  in  our  own  simple  way,  without  any  prayer- 
book  ;  and  on  one  such  occasion,  as  many  as  fifty  were  present  ; 
which  is  a  sufficient  refutation  of  the  assertion  of  Mr.  Southgate, 
that  our  object  in  using  the  prayer-book  is  to  make  the  impression 
on  this  class  of  persons,  that  we  are  Episcopalians.  We  feel  fully 
confident  that  not  one  Armenian  In  a  hundred,  and  probably  not 
one  in  a  thousand,  is  aware  that  we  ever  use  any  of  the  episcopal 
forms  of  prayer  on  any  occasion,  while  it  is  generally  known  that 
our  habit  is,  to  pray  extemporaneously.*  Our  use  of  the  prayer- 


*  It  is  now  nearly  thirteen  years  ago  that  a  friend  of  ours  had  a  conversation  about 
us,  with  a  distinguished  bishop  of  the  Armenian  church  who  has  since  been  Patriarch. 


16 


book,  as  will  appear  from  what  has  been  said,  has  been  merely 
occasional,  and  always  in  a  spirit  of  accommodation  to  the  feel¬ 
ings  of  our  English  episcopal  friends  ;  and  if  Mr.  Southgate  him¬ 
self  had  asked  us  to  baptize  one  of  his  children,  we  should  cer¬ 
tainly,  out  of  regard  to  his  feelings,  have  used  the  episcopal  form, 
with  the  same  exceptions  as  above  mentioned  ;  though  we  should 
not  have  expected,  that  he  would  in  consequence  go  home  and 
report  us  as  having  used  this  form  as  a  trick  to  deceive  the  Ar¬ 
menians  into  a  belief  that  we  are  Episcopalians.  On  this  point 
we  would  also  add,  that  in  this  city  of  so  much  bigotry  and  super¬ 
stition,  where  scarcely  one  can  be  found  who  would  vary,  in  the 
least  degree,  from  his  own  forms,  to  accommodate  the  feelings  of 
others,  we  rejoice  that  we  have  had  an  opportunity  of  showing  a 
different  spirit.  By  conforming  to  all  forms,  so  far  as  we  inno¬ 
cently  could,  we  have  poured  absolute  contempt  upon  all  formal 
religions.  By  being  ready,  in  accommodation  to  the  great  weak¬ 
ness  of  men,  to  use,  on  special  occasions,  an  Episcopal  gown,  a 
Lutheran  one,  a  French  one,  or  none  at  all  ;  to  use  also  occa¬ 
sionally  an  Episcopal  liturgy,  a  French  one,  a  Lutheran  one,  or 
none  at  all, — we  have  shown  that  we  are  immeasurably  exalted 
above  all  the  littleness  of  mere  form  and  ceremony,  and  of  that 
which  is  only  external,  and  have  exhibited  a  spirit  of  tolerance, 
which  was  not  previously  supposed  here  to  have  any  existence 
on  the  earth.  And  this  spirit  of  toleration  we  could  have  exhib¬ 
ited  in  no  other  way.  For  had  we  been  as  uncompromising  and 
unaccommodating  in  regard  to  our  simplicity  of  forms,  as  others 
are  in  regard  to  their  exuberance,  it  would  have  been  lowering 
ourselves  down  to  the  same  level  of  exclusiveness  and  bigotry 
with  all  the  rest.  No  difference  whatever  could  have  been  seen 
between  us  and  them.  We  should  have  been  universally  regarded 
as  being  as  blindly  and  bigotedly  attached  to  our  own  simplicity, 
as  others  are  to  their  abundance  ;  nor  would  it  have  been  in  our 
power  to  correct  such  an  impression.  But  now,  being  free  from 
all,  we  have  made  ourselves  the  servants  of  all,  that  we  might  gain 
the  more.”  As  to  the  perfectly  simple  and  “congregational” 
form  of  our  public  services  for  the  Armenians,  Mr.  Southgate 
bears  the  most  explicit  testimony,  when  he  inadvertently  admits, 
on  the  first  page  of  his  appendix,  that  these  “  services  consist 
mainly  in  extemporaneous  prayer  and  a  sermon  ;  or,  in  other 
words,  they  were  congregational  services  in  the  Armenian  lan¬ 
guage.”  How  completely  does  this  remarkable  admission  nullify 


We  were  then  little  known  here,  and  the  bishop  made  many  inquiries  about  our  relig*- 
ious  forms  and  customs.  Among  other  things  he  asked  how  we  perform  our  prayers. 
Our  friend  replied  that  we  never  use  a  book,  but  pray  “  directly  from  our  hearts,”— 
meaning  that  we  compose  our  own  prayers  as  we  go  along.  The  bishop  expressed 
some  wonder  that  we  were  able  to  do  this,  but  added,  “  They  do  just  as  the  Apostles 
did.  They.^  also,  prayed  in  this  manner.” 


17 


all  his  previous  assertions  in  regard  to  our  studied  attempts,  by 
the  adoption  of  episcopal  forms,  to  pass  ourselves  off  as  Episco¬ 
palians  upon  the  Armenians  !  What  now  becomes  of  his  staring 
capitals,  and  indeed  of  the  whole  edge  and  point  of  his  pamphlet  ? 
And  what  other  theory  will  he  now  invent  to  account  for  what  he 
calls  our  hostility  to  episcopal  missions  ?  What  a  notable  illus¬ 
tration  have  we  here,  of  the  difficulty  of  harmonizing  facts  with 
false  theories,  and  of  framing  a  consistent  story  out  of  any  thing 
but  truth ! 

Mr.  Southgate  represents  us  as  adopting  the  episcopal  clerical 
dress,  using  the  pray er-hooTc,  making  the  sign'of  the  cross  in  bap¬ 
tism,  and  other  such  like  practices,  unknown  to  Congrega- 
tionalists  at  home.  To  each  of  his  specific  charges  we  have  given 
a  specific  answer,  but  what  can  he  expect  us  to  say  in  reference 
to  a  perfectly  indefinite  accusation,  that  we  are  guilty  of  “  other 
SUCH  LIKE  PRACTICES  unknoivn  to  Congregationalists  at  home  1” 
We  have  this  to  say,  that  if  Mr.  S.  had  any  thing  in  his  mind 
when  he  penned  that  expression,  why  did  he  not  state  it  explic¬ 
itly  ?  If  he  had  had  any  other  thing  upon  which  he  could  have 
seized,  we  do  not  doubt  he  would  have  mentioned  it  by  name  ; 
and  from  the  fact  that  he  did  not  mention  it,  may  it  not  be  fairly 
concluded  that  he  actually  knew  of  no  other  such  like  prac¬ 
tices^^  to  charge  upon  us  ?  For  what  reason  then  did  he  insert 
this  passage  unless  it  was  for  the  purpose  of  adding  weight  to  the 
odium  to  be  cast  upon  us  ?  Reasonable  men  will  not  expect  us 
to  answer  such  wholesale  charges,  nor  will  they  receive  any  addi¬ 
tional  impressions  therefrom  in  favor  of  the  justice,  truth,  and 
honesty  of  this  ‘‘  vindication  ”  of  his.  We  have  a  few  remarks  to 
make  in  regard  to  the  assertion  of  Mr.  Southgate,  that  “  the  impres¬ 
sion  still  'prevails  among  the  Armenians  generally,  that  the  Con¬ 
gregational  missionaries  are  clergymen  of  the  English  church, 
notwithstanding  our  mission  has  been  established  here  some  thir¬ 
teen  years.^^  It  is  evident  that  Mr.  S.  means  that  his  readers 
shall  understand  either  that  we  originated  this  impression,  or  that 
we  have  labored  to  perpetuate  it,  or  both  ;  and  that  the  impres¬ 
sion  of  which  he  speaks  is  definitely  this, — that  we  are  Episcopa¬ 
lians.  We  have  already  adduced  facts  sufficient  to  show  that  we 
could  not  be  responsible  for  any  such  impression,  even  if  it  did 
exist,  as  Mr.  S.  represents.  But  that  it  does  not  exist,  we  think 
we  can  make  plainly  to  appear.  It  is  a  fact,  and  upon  this  Mr. 
Southgate  seems  to  have  based  his  assertion,  that  among  the 
great  mass  of  the  people  in  Turkey,  English  and  American  have 
been  considered  as  one,  and  all  have  been  called  alike  Ingliz,  or 
English.  And,  among  the  Christians  of  this  country,  the  appel¬ 
lation  of  Ingliz  (English)  has  been  indiscriminately  applied  to  all 
Protestants  of  whatever  nation,  probably  because  the  English 


18 


were  the  first  Protestants  with  whom  they  became  acquainted, 
and  the  most  prominent.  Thus  the  name  became  a  generic  one, 
and  was  used  as  a  distinctive  title  of  the  Protestant  faith.  As  a 
matter  of  course,  when  we  arrived  in  this  country  we  were  called 
Ingliz  by  Greeks  and  Armenians  ;  and  to  this  day,  many  (though 
not  so  many  as  Mr.  S.  represents)  still  continue  to  apply  to  us 
this  appellation,  meaning  by  it  that  we  are  Protestants  in  our  re¬ 
ligion.  In  using  this  word,  however,  they  have  no  reference  what¬ 
ever  to  the  form  of  church  government  among  us,  and  they  no 
more  mean  to  imply  that  we  belong  to  the  episcopal  church 
when  they  apply  the  name  to  us,  than  they  do  that  Mr.  South- 
gate  belongs  to  the  presbyterian  church,  when  they  apply  the 
name  to  him.  There  are  some  other  appellations  which,  with 
these  persons  to  whom  Mr.  Southgate  alludes,  are  considered  as 
perfectly  synonymous  with  Ingliz,  or  English,  viz.  Lutran  (Lu¬ 
theran),  Framason  (Freemason),  and  Volter  (a  follower  of  Vol¬ 
taire)  ;  and  these  terms  are  applied  as  well  to  Episcopalians,  as  to 
Congregationalists  and  Presbyterians.  We  may  therefore  say 
with  truth,  that  just  so  far  as  the  impression  prevails  that  we  are 
clergymen  of  the  English  church,  just  so  far  does  the  impression 
prevail  that  Mr.  Southgate  is  a  member  of  the  Lutheran  church, 
and  this  he  cannot  deny.  And  in  either  case,  not  a  thought  is 
expended  by  the  people  upon  the  question  as  to  what  form  of 
church  government  we  respectively  adopt.  Mr.  Southgate  has 
therefore  seized  hold  of  a  word,  which  the  ignorant  people  around 
us  use  in  a  wrong  sense,  and,  applying  it  to  a  meaning  which  it 
never  has  in  their  minds,  has  attempted,  by  this  means,  to  make 
out  his  case.  Such  expedients,  however,  are  not  needed  in  a 
good  cause,  and  can  never  be  resorted  to  without  exciting  the  sus¬ 
picion  of  dishonest  intent. 

In  concluding  our  remarks  on  the  charge  of  concealment,  we 
would  say  in  general,  that  our  position  is,  as  it  has  ever  been, 
open  to  all  the  world.  The  Instructions  we  received  were  pub¬ 
licly  given,  and  are  to  be  found  in  the  published  documents  of 
the  Board.  To  these  Instructions  we  have  ever  endeavored  faith¬ 
fully  to  adhere.  Our  main  object  has  ever  been  to  preach  the 
fundamental  truths  of  the  Gospel,  and  to  avoid,  as  much  as  possi¬ 
ble,  calling  attention  to  those  minor  points  which  unhappily  sepa¬ 
rate  Protestant  Christians. 

(4.)  Mr.  Southgate,  throughout  his  pamphlet,  claims  it  as  an 
object  of  the  Episcopal  mission  to  Constantinople,  to  represent  the 
Ppiscopal  church  of  America,  to  the  Oriental  churches.  In  ex¬ 
plaining  his  views  of  this  important  branch  of  his  labors  here,  he 
virtually  concedes  all  that  we  have  ever  reported  to  you  concern¬ 
ing  his  interference  with  our  operations.  The  substance  of  what 
we  have  written  to  you  of  him  is,  that  he  has  so  represented  us  to 


19 


the  Armenian  people,  as  to  injure,  if  possible,  our  influence  and 
our  work.  Let  us  hear  what  he  himself  says  on  this  point.  The 
presiding  bishop  of  the  Episcopal  church  of  the  United  Slates  had 
said  in  his  Instructions  to  Mr.  Southgate,  You  may  further  state 
to  them  [the  bishops  and  ecclesiastical  authorities  of  the  Eastern 
churches,]  that  many  of  those  called  Protestants,  have  rejected, 
and  are  still  so  opposed  to  episcopacy  and  confirmation  and  the 
use  of  liturgies,  that  an  intimate  fellowship  and  connection  with 
them  is  at  present  impracticable.”  We  cannot  avoid  remarking 
here,  in  passing,  on  the  exalted  place  here  given  to  mere  external 
organization  and  form.  If  two  churches  happen  to  be  alike  in  the 
three  particulars  here  mentioned,  that  is,  as  to  episcopacy,  con¬ 
firmation,  and  liturgies,”  it  is  implied  that  a  most  intimate  fel¬ 
lowship  and  connection  ”  may  be  established  between  them,  with¬ 
out  regard  to  fundamental  points  of  doctrine  and  practice.  Thus 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  church  of  America  may  form  an  intimate 
fellowship  and  connection  with  the  Greek  church,  because  the 
latter  holds  equally  with  the  former  to  “episcopacy,  confirmation, 
and  the  use  of  liturgies,” — notwithstanding  the  Greek  church  is 
full  of  the  grossest  error  and  idolatry.  And  this  same  Greek 
church  must  be  warned  against  any  intimate  “  fellowship  and  con¬ 
nection  ”  with  missionaries  of  purely  evangelical  sentiments,  and 
who  might  perhaps  be  the  means  of  reclaiming  them  from  their 
errors,  and  making  them  acquainted  with  all  that  is  essential  to 
salvation  in  the  Gospel,  merely  because  those  missionaries  have 
not  the  external  forms  of  episcopacy,  confirmation,  and  a  prayer- 
book  I  Is  this  the  divine  way,  or  is  it  merely  himan  invention  1 
In  regard  to  these  Instructions  of  the  bishop,  we  have  to  say, 
that  when  they  were  first  printed  in  the  official  publication  of  the 
Episcopal  Board,  we  stated  formally  to  Messrs.  Robertson  and 
Southgate  our  dissatisfaction  with  the  passage  above  quoted. 
They  replied,  in  substance,  that  we  must  not  understand  the 
bishop  to  mean  all  that  his  words  literally  imply  ;  that  he  was  an 
old  man  and  not  much  acquainted  with  the  business  of  giving  in¬ 
struction  to  missionaries,  etc.  And  we  are  ready  most  freely  to 
acknowledge  that  w'e  do  not  believe  the  late  Bishop  Griswold, 
wdiose  excellencies  w^e  well  knew,  and  whose  memory  we  revere, 
ever  could  have  penned  that  passage  with  a  full  knowledge  of  its 
true  import.  But  it  matters  not,  so  far  as  the  question  between 
us  and  Mr.  Southgate  is  concerned,  whether  he  wrote,  or  even 
ever  saw  these  Instructions  or  not.  As  they  are  placed  over  the 
name  of  Bishop  Griswold,  before  the  public,  we  must  call  them 
his.  Mr.  Southgate  did  not  attempt  to  justify  the  expression  re¬ 
ferred  to,  when  we  first  made  known  to  him  our  dissatisfaction 
with  it ;  but  now%  he  is  ready  to  endorse  every  word  of  it,  even 
when  understood  in  its  most  obvious  and  literal  sense.  He  asks 


20 


in  regard  to  it,  in  his  ‘‘  Vindication,”  (p.  19,)  ‘‘But  is  not  this  a 
plain  matter  of  fact  ?  And  are  the  American  Board  and  its  sup¬ 
porters  *  *  *  ashamed  or  afraid  to  have  it  known  of  themselves  ? 
I  am  not  allowed  hy  this  passage  to  oppose,  or  speak  evil  of  them, 
but  merely  to  state  a  plain  fact,  bearing  upon  Christian  commun¬ 
ion  and  fellowship.”  We  reply  that  it  is  a  plain  matter  of  fact, 
which  we  are  neither  “  ashamed  or  afraid  to  have  known,”  that 
we  are  not  Episcopalians,  and  do  not  use  liturgies ;  but  does  Mr, 
Southgate  really  expect  us  quietly  to  assent  to  the  right  of  his 
bishops  to  instruct  him,  and  to  his  right  to  obey  their  instructions, 
to  come  out  here  and  state  to  the  people  among  whom  we  have 
already  a  successful  mission  established,  that  in  consequence  of 
our  non-episcopal  character,  “  an  intimate  fellowship  and  connec¬ 
tion  with  us  is  impracticable  ?”  And  suppose  his  bishops  were  to 
send  forth  scores  of  other  missionaries,  in  different  directions, — 
some  to  Syria,  some  to  the  Sandwich  Islands,  some  to  Ceylon, 
some  to  Bombay,  some  to  Siam  ;  and,  in  short,  some  to  each  peo¬ 
ple  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  among  whom  the  American  Board 
has  amission  already  established, — and  to  instruct  their  missionaries, 
in  like  manner,  to  say  to  the  people  every  where,  that  those  whom 
they  have  hitherto  receiv^ed  as  their  spiritual  teachers,  have  no 
bishops  or  liturgies,  and  not  being  ordained,  are  not  authorized 
teachers  of  the  Christian  religion,  and  that,  therefore,  “  an  intimate 
fellowship  and  connection  with  them  is  impracticable  ;”  should 
we  be  bound  quietly  to  submit  to  all  this,  and  not  open  our 
mouths  at  all  ?  Now  it  would  be  only  a  very  slight  extension  of 
the  principles  of  the  bishop’s  Instructions,  on  which  Mr.  South- 
gate  acknowledges  that  he  has  been  acting  in  the  East,  to  put  in 
motion  all  this  machinery  for  the  suppression  of  non-episcopal 
missions  throughout  the  world. 

In  order  to  understand  this  subject  more  clearly,  let  us  suppose 
a  case  in  which  Mr.  Southgate,  in  obedience  to  his  Instructions, 
states  his  plain  fact ^  hearing  upon  Christian  communion  and  fel- 
lowshipf  (p.  19.)  Let  us  suppose  that,  on  his  arrival  here,  the 
second  time,  from  America,  he  called  on  the  Armenian  patriarch, 
and  when  a  favorable  opportunity  offered,  he  said  in  regard  to  us  ; 
“  Those  men  use  no  liturgies  and  have  no  bishops,  and  conse¬ 
quently  an  intimate  fellowship  and  connection  between  you  and 
them  is  impracticable.”  And  suppose  he  had  gone  ftom  the  pa¬ 
triarch’s  room  to  that  of  his  vicar,  and  repeated  substantially  the 
same  thing.  And  suppose  that,  subsequently,  as  good  opportuni¬ 
ties  offered,  he  were  to  repeat  the  same  to  other  bishops  and  var- 
tabeds  residing  at  the  capital.  And  suppose  that  he  were  to 
state  the  same  “  fact,”  from  time  to  time,  to  intelligent  and  influ¬ 
ential  laymen,  and  even  to  some  who  were  decidedly  friendly  to 
us.  Would  all  this,  or  would  it  not,  be  an  interference  with  our 


21 


labors  ?  And  furthermore,  it  is  evident  that  the  Instructions  given 
by  boards  and  bishops  to  their  missionaries,  have  some  object ; 
tliey  imply  something  to  be  done,  some  end  to  be  attained.  And 
Mr.  Southgate,  in  thus  throwing  out  a  word  here  and  another 
there,  in  regard  to  the  “impracticability”  of  “any  intimate  fel¬ 
lowship  and  connection”  between  Armenians  and  “congregation¬ 
al  missionaries,”  would  not  expect  his  words  to  be  ‘  like  water 
spilled  upon  the  ground.’  And  suppose  he  should  hear,  that  in 
consequence  of  his  representations  of  us,  one  man  who  had  so  far 
brought  himself  into  “fellowship”  with  us  as  to  place  a  boy  in 
our  seminary,  had  removed  him  ;  and  not  only  so,  but  was  exert¬ 
ing  his  influence  upon  other  parents  to  persuade  them  to  remove 
their  children  also.  And  suppose  that  another,  who  for  years  had 
attended  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  in  one  of  our  houses, 
alarmed  by  Mr.  Southgate’s  representations  in  regard  to  our  hav¬ 
ing  no  bishops  to  ordain  us,  were  not  only  to  absent  himself,  but 
also  make  the  most  vigorous  efforts  to  break  up  the  meeting  en¬ 
tirely,  and  even  to  banish  us  all  from  the  country.  Is  this  any 
thing  more  than  Mr.  S.  would  expect  as  the  natural  result  of  his 
labors  in  spreading  “  the  plain  fact  he  speaks  of,  bearing  upon 
Christian  communion  and  fellowship  ?”  And  is  it  not  plain  that 
Mr.  S.,  in  acknowledging  that  he  conscientiously  acts  according 
to  the  Instructions  he  has  received,  does  in  fact  confess  that  he 
has  done  or  may  do  all  that  is  above  supposed  ?  And  this,  not¬ 
withstanding  he  elsewhere  in  his  pamphlet  declares  that  he  has 
repeatedly  told  the  Armenians  that  “  his  business  here  is  not  to 
oppose  us,”  (p.  23,)  and  notwithstanding  his  strange  assertion 
that  “  his  rule  has  been  non-interference.^’  (Ibid.)  That  he  can 
obey  the  bishop’s  Instructions,  which  he  confesses  that  he  does, 
and,  at  the  same  time,  not  interfere  with  our  labors,  we  regard  as 
an  utter  impossibility.*  Now,  what  we  have  reported  to  you  in 
former  communications,  in  regard  to  Mr.  Southgate,  is  not  that 
he  has  opposed  us  'personally,  but  that  his  church  principles  have 
led  him,  in  various  instances,!  interfere  with  our  labors,  and 
this  we  believe  he  has  now,  virtually  though  unintentionally,  ac¬ 
knowledged  in  his  “Vindication.”  We  have  one  remark  more  to 
make  under  this  head,  which  is,  that  if  we  were  to  go  to  any  place 


*  Mr.  S.  asserts,  in  his  “Vindication,”  that  diirins;  the  tv.'o  weeks  of  his  residence  v:ith 
the  Syrian  patriarch,  he  does  not  think  that  he  made  any  use  of  these  Instructions  to 
our  prejudice.  Pray  why  should  he  make  this  assertion  merely  in  reference  to  his  two 
weeks  residence  with  the  Syrian  patriarch,  among  whose  people  there  were  no  mis¬ 
sionaries  of  the  Board,  and  say  not  a  word  in  regard  to  the  manner  in  which  he  has 
used  these  Instructions  during  the  years  of  his  residence  near  the  seat  of  the  Armenian 
and  Greek  patriarchs,  among  whose  flocks  we  have  during  all  this  time  been  carrying 
on  missionary  operations  ? 
t  See  Note  II 


3 


where  they  had  a  flourishing  mission,  and  make  it  a  special  object 
to  set  forth  the  excellencies  of  our  church  before  the  people,  ex¬ 
plaining  to  them  how  much  more  simple  and  scriptural  are  its 
forms  than  the  episcopal  ;  and  especially  were  we  to  add,  that, 
as  the  episcopal  missionaries  are  opposed  to  our  simple  forms, 
therefore  it  is  not  advisable  to  come  into  any  close  terms  of  inti¬ 
macy  with  them  ;  would  Mr.  Southgate  think  that  we  were  doing 
the  thing  that  was  perfectly  proper,  and  of  which  no  living  be¬ 
ing  would  have  the  right  to  complain  ? 

(5.)  Mr.  Southgate  boasts  (though  if  we  are  to  believe  him, 
it  is  without  any  boasting  disposition,)  “  that  the  tivo  or  three 
episcopal  missions  in  this  country  have  done  more,  within  the  last 
two  years,  to  counteract  the  designs  of  the  papists,  and  to  recover 
those  who  were  ensnared  by  their  delusions,  than  the  eight  or  ten 
congregational  missions  have  accomplished  during  the  twenty 
years  of  their  existence.”  (p.  15.)  We  fear  that,  notwithstand¬ 
ing  Mr.  Southgate’s  declaration  to  the  contrary,  many  of  his  read¬ 
ers  will  believe  that  this  sentence  was  dictated  by  nothing  else 
than  a  spirit  of  boasting  ;  and  especially  those  who  have  been  in 
the  habit  of  reading  his  published  communications  ;  for  they  will 
there  have  seen  very  many  exhibitions  of  the  same  spirit.  He 
has  before  spoken  repeatedly  of  congregational  missionaries,  al¬ 
though  he  ought  to  be  aware  that  it  is  a  misrepresentation  of  facts 
to  call  the  missionaries  of  the  Board  indiscriminately  by  that  name. 
He  now  speaks  of  ‘‘  the  eight  or  ten  congregational  missions  ”  in 
this  country,  when  he  ought  to  have  known  that  there  is  not  even 
one  congregational  mission  here.  We  will  let  this  pass,  however, 
and  proceed  to  a  consideration  of  his  boasted  fact,  that  two  or 
three  episcopal  missions  have  done,  in  two  years,  towards  coun¬ 
teracting  papacy,  what  eight  or  ten  missions  of  the  American 
Board  (for  so  we  und('rstand  his  meaning)  could  not  effect  in 
twenty  years  !  And  he  accounts  for  this  supposed  fact  on  the 
theory  that  we  can  only  act  on  individuals,  and  can  never  expect 
to  move  whole  communities  ;  but  that  episcopal  missionaries, 
while  they  have  “  far  greater  advantages  for  acting  upon  individ¬ 
uals,  have  also  the  power  of  acting  upon  masses.”  (p.  16.)  It  is 
true  this  last  assertion  is  made  primarily  in  reference  to  the  Pa¬ 
pists,  but  he  immediately  after  claims  “  the  same  advantages  and 
the  same  power”  for  his  own  church.  This  reference  to  the  su¬ 
perior  power  of  xho-payal  church  over  us,  in  acting  on  masses  in 
the  East,  satisfactorily  explains  the  whole  philosophy  of  his  theory 
in  regard  to  the  superiority  of  his  own  church  in  this  respect. 
The  Papists  have  ever  adopted  it  as  a  principle,  in  laboring  for 
the  conversion  of  the  Oriental  churches,  that,  if  the  patriarchs  and 
bishops  can  be  converted,  the  people  are  of  course  secured. 
Hence  they  have  ever  directed  their  strongest  efforts  to  the  clergy. 


23 


Every  artifice,  however  unchristian  and  wicked,  has  been  resorted 
to,  and  every  motive  however  low  and  worldly  has  been  presented 
to  uro-e  them  to  swear  alleii-iance  to  Rome.  In  their  view  the 

o  o 

people  are  like  so  many  dumb  sheep  that  know  nothing,  and  to 
entice  them  into  their  I’old,  nothing  more  is  necessary  than  to  se¬ 
cure  their  shepherds — the  bishops  and  priests.  Repeated  in¬ 
stances,  however,  can  be  referred  to,  to  show  that,  notwithstand¬ 
ing  the  extreme  degradation  of  the  common  people  generally  in 
this  country,  still  they  are  men  and  not  brutes  ;  and  they  do  not 
always  confidingly  follow  wherever  their  spiritual  guides  may 
choose  to  lead  them.  Bishops  and  patriarchs  even  have  been 
brought  over  to  Rome,  while  the  mass  of  the  people  have  reso¬ 
lutely  refused  to  go.  The  Catholicos  himself  of  the  whole  Arme¬ 
nian  church  once  took  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  Roman  pon¬ 
tiff,  but  to  this  day  the  great  mass  of  Armenians  adhere  to  their 
own  mother  church.  Mr.  Southgate  has  evidently  caught  the 
spirit  of  the  papal  propagandists,  so  far  as  this  theory  is  concerned. 
He  also  represents  an  episcopal  church,  and  can  therefore  ope¬ 
rate  upon  bishops  and  ijatriarchs,  as  we  poor  Presbyterians  and 
Congregationalists  cannot  do.  And  if  he  can  persuade  bishops 
and  patriarchs,  the  people  will  be  persuaded  as  a  matter  of  course. 
Herein  consists  his  boasted  advantage  over  us,  and  his  power  of 
moving  masses  as  well  as  individuals.  For  ourselves,  we  are  con¬ 
tent  to  have  only  that  power,  in  kind  and  degree,  to  act  upon 
communities  and  nations,  which  the  simple  preaching  of  the  gos¬ 
pel  gives  us,  when  attended  by  the  Divine  Spirit ; — that  power 
which  the  apostles  and  early  preachers  of  Christianity  had,  who, 
in  spite  of  the  opposition  and  anathemas  of  the  existing  hierarchies, 
were  the  instruments,  under  God,  of  shaking  the  whole  Roman 
empire  to  its  very  foundations. 

And  now  as  to  the  fact  stated  by  Mr.  Southgate,  as  to  what 
episcopal  missions  have  done  in  this  country  against  Papists  with¬ 
in  two  years  past ;  we  believe  that  we  can  clearly  show  that  what 
he  asserts  on  this  subject  is  a  perfectly  groundless  boast.  The 
principal  movement  of  any  episcopal  missionaries  in  these  parts, 
within  the  time  specified,  to  counteract  the  designs  of  the  Papists, 
we  believe  to  have  been  the  effort  of  Mr.  Southgate  to  restore  to 
the  Jacobites  a  number  of  their  churches  in  Mesopotamia  and 
Syria,  that  had  been  seized  and  appropriated  by  the  Papists. 
Firmans  for  the  restoration  of  these  churches  had  been  obtained 
by  the  Jacobite  patriarch  at  different  times,  without  any  foreign 
aid,  as  is  distinctly  stated  in  Mr.  Southgate’s  book  of  travels  in 
Mesopotamia.  Witbin  the  last  two  years  a  new  firman  has  been 
procured  through  the  intervention  of  the  English  ambassador; 
who,  in  consequence  of  the  representations  of  Mr.  Southgate  and 
others,  was  induced  to  back  up  the  representations  of  the  Jacobite 


24 


bishop  of  Mosul  to  the  Porte  ;  hut,  through  the  counter  intrigues 
of  the  Papists,  this  new  firman  shared  the  fate  of  its  predecessors. 
And  furthermore,  Mr.  Southgate  well  knew,  when  he  penned  the 
above  sentence  in  regard  to  what  he  and  his  coadjutors  have  done 
during  the  last  two  years,  that  that  firman  had  never  been  carried 
into  effect,  and  that  things  actually  remain  just  as  they  were  before 
his  efforts  were  commenced. 

You  will  observe  that  in  this  case  the  attempt  was  merely  to 
recover  from  the  Papists,  not  masses  of  people,  but  masses  of 
stone  and  mortar, — that  is,  church  buildings  ;  and  even  if  the  fir¬ 
man  had  taken  effect,  not  a  single  soul,  ensnared  by  Rome,  would 
necessarily  have  been  reclaimed.  This  therefore  could  not  have 
been  quoted  as  an  illustration  of  the  superior  “power  and  advant¬ 
ages  ”  of  Episcopacy  for  moving  communities.  And  furthermore, 
the  firman  was  procured  by  ambassadorial  interference,  and  it  had 
nothing  to  do  with  Episcopacy,  as  such.  Instead  of  showing  any 
peculiar  power  in  Episcopacy,  or  adaptedness  to  moving  masses 
of  people  in  the  East,  it  only  shows  the  good  disposition  of  Sir 
Stratford  Canning  to  plead  the  cause  of  the  oppressed,  and,  if  you 
please,  Mr.  Southgate’s  good  disposition,  as  an  individual — not  as 
an  Episcopalian — in  exerting  himself  for  their  relief.  As  it  is, 
he  takes  to  himself  and  to  his  church  all  the  praise  of  this  be¬ 
nevolent  attempt,  the  chief  part  of  which  is  due  to  Sir  Stratford 
Canning ;  and  he  refers  to  it  as  something  actually  accomplished, 
in  resisting  the  encroachments  of  papacy,  while  in  fact  the  at¬ 
tempt  failed  and  nothing  has  been  accomplished.  But,  it  may  be 
asked,  does  he  not  refer  to  some  other  instance  in  which  he  has 
been  successful  in  his  efforts  against  papacy  ?  We  answer,  that 
if  there  had  been  any  such  instance,  in  which  papal  encroach¬ 
ments  had  been  counteracted  in  the  wholesale  manner  spoken  of 
by  Mr.  S.,  doubtless  we  should  have  known  it ;  for  the  larger  the 
mass  upon  which  the  effort  has  been  successfully  made,  evidently, 
the  more  notorious  must  be  the  fact.  But  we  know  of  no  such 
case  in  all  this  eastern  world.  In  connection  with  this  topic,  Mr. 
Southgate  declares  that  he  has  abundant  evidence,  that  “  the  pa¬ 
pal  missionaries  regard  episcopal  missions  and  not  ours,  as  the 
great  obstacle  in  the  way  of  their  progress.”  (p.  15.)  On  this 
point  we  have  only  to  say  that  the  Papists  have  preached  against 
us,  written  books  against  us  by  name,  thundered  anathemas 
against  us  and  all  who  should  have  anything  to  do  with  us,  and 
they  have  represented  us  in  their  published  reports  as  being  a  very 
formidable  obstacle  to  their  operations  in  the  East.  And  we  have 
never  heard  of  their  ever  having  even  alluded  to  Mr.  Southgate  or 
his  colleagues  by  name,  or  in  any  way,  so  as  to  distinguish  him 
from  us.  And  we  should  like,  also,  to  know  how  it  could  be,  that 


y 


25 


a  knowledge  of  the  fact,  that  his  church  is  episcopal,  would  excite 
peculiar  suspicion  and  peculiar  fears  in  the  minds  of  Papists,  while 
a  knowledge  of  the  same  fact  inspires  (as  Mr.  S.  represents)  with 
brotherly  love  and  confidence  the  minds  of  the  Greeks  and  Ar¬ 
menians  ? 

(6.)  We  wish  to  call  your  attention  to  some  mis-statements 
and  contradictions  in  this  pamphlet  of  Mr.  Southgate,  which  it 
would  be  very  gratifying  to  us  to  have  explained. 

On  p.  23,  Mr.  S.  says,  I  have  even  declined  to  form  acquaint¬ 
ance  with  persons  whom  I  knew  to  he  hostile  to  them,”  i.  e.  to 
us.  This  declaration  has  no  force  unless  it  means  that  he  has 
declined  both  forming  and  cultivating  the  acquaintance  of  those 
whom  he  knew  to  be  hostile  to  us,  and  for  the  reason  that  they 
are  hostile  to  us.  There  are  many  persons  to  be  found  here,  who 
are  hostile  to  us,  hut  whose  acquaintance  any  decent  man  would 
decline  forming,  because  it  would  be  a  disgrace  to  him  to  be  inti¬ 
mate  with  such  characters.  We  do  not  assert  that  Mr.  Southgate 
alludes  to  such  characters  merely,  hut  we  would  like  to  ask  of 
how  much  worth  is  this  statement,  when,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  he 
does  cultivate  a  most  intimate  acquaintance  with  some  whom  he 
knows  to  be  among  our  bitterest  enemies.  This  is  the  case  with 
at  least  three  prominent  individuals,  who  were  formerly  our  friends, 
but  whom  he  was  the  principal  instrument  in  drawing  away  from 
us,  and  who  have  ever  since  been  plotting  our  overthrow.  We 
are  knowing  to  the  fact  that  they  are  freely  received  at  his  house, 
and  declared  bv  him  to  be  excellent  men,  in  a  much  better  state 
of  mind  than  they  were  before  ;  and  the  adopted  son  of  one  of 
them,  who  was  a  member  of  our  Seminary,  Mr.  S.  has  sent  to 
America  for  an  education. 

Again,  on  the  first  page  of  the  Appendix,  Mr.  S.  takes  the  word 
church  from  a  newspaper  reporter,  and  uses  it  in  such  a  way,  in 
reference  to  our  Armenian  service,  as  to  leave  the  impression  on 
the  minds  of  his  episcopal  readers,  that  this  mode  of  designating 
that  service  is  approved  and  adopted  by  us,  which  he  certainly 
knows  is  not  true.  Is  this  fair  and  candid,  or  the  reverse  ? 

Again,  Mr.  S.  professes  that  his  rule  is  non-interference  with  us, 
and  that  he  has  never  in  a  single  instance,  departed  from  this  rule 
(pp.  23  and  25)  ;  but  on  page  15  he  states  it  as  his  deliberate 
conviction,  that  Congregationalism  cannot  possibly  produce  any 
strong  impression  on  the  episcopal  churches  of  the  East,  not  hav¬ 
ing  those  features  which  are  considered  by  these  corrupt  churches, 
as  the  outward  and  visible  signs  of  a  church,  and  he  says  in  a  note 
on  the  same  page,  that  where  these  signs  are  wanting,  these 
churches  will  immediately  reject  without  further  inquiry.  But 
still  he  acknowledges  that  he  faithfully  complies  with  the  Instruc¬ 
tions  he  received,  and  makes  known  to  these  people  that  we  are 


26 


wanting  in  these  signs  of  a  true  Christmn  church,  knowing  that 
they  will  immediately  reject  us.  What  is  this  but  intended  inter¬ 
ference  with  our  labors, — judging  the  case  on  his  own  principles.* 
Nor  is  the  character  of  his  intentions  and  motives  in  the  least 
degree  altered,  by  the  falseness  of  his  theories  about  the  compara¬ 
tive  advantages  of  Protestant  Episcopalians,  and  Protestant  Pres¬ 
byterians  or  Congregationalists. 

Again  on  page  24,  Mr.  S.  represents  us  as  endeavoring  to  make 
the  impression  that  we  are  Episcopalians,  and  among  other  proofs 
of  this  he  states  that  until  within  two  or  three  years  “  we  were  all 
supposed  to  be  bishops.”  And  in  a  note  at  the  bottom,  he  says 
that  an  Armenian  priest  said  to  him  but  a  short  time  ago,  ‘‘  What 
a  singular  church  theirs  must  be,  when  all  their  ministers  are 
hishopsP  And  we  also  would  exclaim — What  a  singular  Episco¬ 
pacy  they  must  have  supposed  ours  to  be,  if  the  impression  of 
which  Mr.  S.  speaks  was  that  all  our  ministers  are  bishops  ! 
According  to  his  representation,  the  case  must  stand  about  thus: 
We  have  been  laboring  hard  for  thirteen  years  to  make  the  people 
of  these  eastern  churches  believe  that  we,  like  them,  and  like  Mr. 
Southgate,  and  like  the  English  church,  are  Episcopalians,  and 
among  other  artihces  that  we  have  resorted  to,  such  as  “  wearing 
the  clerical  gown,”  “  making  the  sign  of  the  cross  in  baptism,” 
and  “  using  the  prayer-book,”  we  have  told  them  that  in  our 
church  all  the  ministers  are  bishops  !  That  is,  we  have  informed 
them,  that  among  us  there  is  only  one  order  of  the  clergy — 
whether  called  bishops,  or  elders,  or  ministers,  and  this  led  the 
Armenian  priest  to  exclaim  with  wonder  at  the  fact  that  there  was 
such  a  church  in  the  world.  In  what  manner  Mr.  S.  would  recon¬ 
cile  the  difterent  parts  of  this  story  with  itself,  we  cannot  imagine. 
We  have  always  supposed  that  three  orders  of  the  clergy  was 
considered  by  Mr.  Southgate  and  his  church  as  essential  to  Epis¬ 
copacy  ;  and  if  his  object  is  to  represent  us  as  claiming  to  belong 
to  churches  which  have  only  one  order  of  the  clergy,  all  of  whom 
are  considered  as  bishops,  we  are  willing  to  answer  to  this  charge 
before  the  American  public. 

Again,  Mr.  Southgate  represents  us  as  studiously  avoiding  any 
controversy  with  him  or  his  church  in  the  field,  lest  our  masks 
should  thereby  be  removed,  and  the  people  find  out  what  we  are. 
(p.  12.)  He  says,  “  The  war  will  be  continued  at  home  ;  news¬ 
paper  and  annual  reports  will  be  full  of  it  ;  but  here  not  a  breath 
will  be  raised  nor  a  word  uttered  to  show  that  we  are  any  way 
distinct  from  them.”  We  beg  you  to  compare  this  with  a  sentence 
on  page  23,  in  which  he  says,  “  Hard  speeches  said  against  me, 
or  against  my  church  have  been  reported  to  me  as  coming  from 


*  See  Note  III. 


27 


them  (i.  e.  from  the  missionaries  of  the  Board).  I  have  passed 
them  by  in  silence  for  the  sake  of  peace,”  he.  We  would  like 
to  ask  Mr.  Southgate  which  of  these  two  contradictory  representa¬ 
tions  is  true.  He  first  informs  his  readers  that  we  are  so  eager  for 
passing  ourselves  off  as  Episcopalians  that  we  never  utter  a  word 
nor  even  raise  a  breath  here  to  show  that  we  are  in  any  way  dis¬ 
tinct  from  him.  He  then  declares,  that  he  has  been  informed,  not 
merely  that  we  “  raise  a  breath  ”  and  ‘‘  utter  a  word,’  but  that 
we  make  hard  speeches  against  him  and  his  church.”  We  leave 
it  with  Mr.  S.  to  reconcile  these  contradictions  as  best  he  can. 

(7.)  In  conclusion,  we  shall  briefly  call  your  attention  to  sev¬ 
eral  statements  in  this  pamphlet,  our  remarks  upon  which  could 
not  well  be  arranged  under  any  of  the  preceding  topics. 

(«.)  On  page  11,  Mr.  Southgate  explicitly  acknowledges  that 
Mr.  Badger  has  assumed  a  position  of  hostility  ”  towards  the 
missionaries  of  the  Board.  And  yet  he  complains  (p.  10),  that 
“  no  means  have  been  spared  to  make  it  appear  that  this  mission, 
that  is,  the  English  mission  to  the  Mountain  Nestorians,  was  a 
conspiracy  against  ”  the  operations  of  the  Board  ;  adding  that 
“  the  missionary,  the  Society  which  supported  him,  and  the  digni¬ 
taries  of  the  church  who  favored  the  enterprise,  have  been  assailed 
with  unmeasured  abuse.”  Now,  if  it  is  a  plain  matter  of  fact  that 
IVIr.  Badger  has  placed  himself  in  hostile  array  against  our  missions, 
as  Mr.  Southgate  acknowledges,  is  it  falsifying  the  truth  to  repre¬ 
sent  that  his  mission  is  a  conspiracy  against  the  operations  of  the 
Board  ?  And  if  “  the  Society  that  supports  Mr.  Badger  and  the 
dignitaries  of  the  church  who  favored  the  enterprize,”  after  having 
been  well  informed  of  his  hostility  to  us,  still  continue  him  in  the 
field,  do  they  not  virtually  assume  the  responsibility  of  all  his  acts, 
and  are  they  not  really  as  much  to  blame  as  he  is  himself?  And 
if  these  facts  are  stated  in  the  public  papers,  can  it  be  called 
‘‘  abuse  ?”  We  do  not,  however,  acknowledge  any  responsibility 
in  regard  to  any  statements  in  reference  to  Mr.  Badger  or  Mr. 
Southgate,  of  which  we  were  not  the  authors  ;  and  we  will  say,  in 
this  connection,  that  in  regard  to  the  “  Nestorian  massacre,”  wm 
think  Mr.  Southgate  might,  in  candor,  have  acknowledged,  that 
the  first  vindication  from  all  blame  in  the  matter,  of  himself  and 
Mr.  Badger,  that  appeared  before  the  public,  was  from  the  pen  of 
Dr.  Grant,  one  of  the  missionaries  of  the  American  Board. 

(6.)  On  page  17,  Mr.  Southgate,  in  speaking  of  his  first  im¬ 
pressions,  on  visiting  the  nominally  Christian  churches  in  Turkey, 
remarks — ‘‘  I  was  particularly  struck  with  their  great  resemblance 
to  us,  not  only  in  the  constitution  of  their  ministry,  but  in  their 
use  of  the  same  creed,  and  in  their  general  views  and  preposses¬ 
sions,  with  regard  to  the  nature  and  character  of  the  Christian 
church.  I  found  myself,  in  a  word,  among  Episcopalians,  and 


28 


was  at  once  surprised  and  pleased  with  the  numerous  points  of 
affinity  between  us.”  In  other  portions  of  this  pamphlet,  he  rep¬ 
resents  himself  as  laboring  hard  and  successfully  against  Papacy  ; 
and  he  rejects  the  charge  (imputed  by  a  reporter  to  Dr.  Anderson) 
that  his  influence  coincided  with  the  papal  missionaries.  It  must 
also  be  borne  in  mind  that  when  Mr.  Southgate  returned  from 
America  after  his  first  visit  there,  he  brought  a  letter,  signed  by 
seven  bishops  of  his  church,  addressed  to  the  Greek  and  Syrian 
patriarchs,  in  which  the  proposition  is  formally  made  for  a  certain 
kind  of  friendly  alliance  and  co-operation.  Now,  we  do  not  intend 
to  charge  Mr.  Southgate  with  acting  in  concert  with  the  Papal 
church,  but  from  all  the  above,  we  cannot  possibly  conceive  why 
he  should  be  unwilling  so  to  act,  provided  the  Papists  were  willing 
to  accept  of  such  an  ally.  For,  in  the  first  place,  there  is  no  very 
material  difference  between  these  Eastern  churches,  among  whom 
he  found  “  so  many  points  of  affinity  with  his  own,”  and  the 
papal  church.  The  latter,  equally  with  the  former,  has  the 
three  orders.”  It  has  also  the  same  creed,”  and  the  same 
‘‘general  views  and  prepossessions  with  regard  to  the  nature  and 
character  of  the  Christian  church.”  Why  then  should  not  Mr.  S. 
frankly  acknowledge,  in  his  communications  home,  that  he  finds  in 
the  Papal  church  also  “  numerous  points  of  affinity  with  his 
own  ?  ” 

And,  in  the  second  place,  a  formal  proposition  has  been  made 
by  him,  as  the  organ  of  his  church,  to  the  Greek  and  Syrian  patri¬ 
archs,  for  some  kind  of  an  alliance  and  co-operation.  If  therefore 
in  the  same  letter  from  some  missionary  of  the  American  Board, 
in  which  it  was  announced  that  the  Greek  patriarch  has  recently 
issued  another  thundering  bull  against  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures 
in  a  language  understood  by  the  people,  it  were  also  stated  that 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Southgate  seeks  to  form  such  an  alliance  with  this 
patriarch  as  will  secure  a  fraternal  correspondence  and  co-operation 
between  the  Greek  church  and  the  Episcopal  church  of  America, 
would  the  statement  be  slanderous  ?  And  if  he  can  co-operate 
with  the  Greeks,  on  what  ground  can  he  refuse  to  co-operate  with 
the  Papists.  Every  essential  error  in  doctrine  and  practice,  found 
in  the  Papal  church,  is  also  found  in  the  Greek  ;  and  the  latter 
has  shown  as  deep  and  bitter  hostility  to  evangelical  missions  as 
the  former.  And  when  the  Greek  church  is  as  well  known  in 
America  as  the  Papal  church  is,  we  believe  the  Episcopalians  will 
seek  no  more  alliance  with  her. 

Mr.  S.  professes  to  protest  as  faithfully  against  the  corruptions 
of  these  Eastern  communions,  as  any  missionary  in  the  land  ;  ” 
(p.  14)  ;  but  the  question  suggests  itself  at  once,  what  does  he 
regard  as  corruptions  ?  Is  it  the  intercession  of  the  saints  ?  the 
bowing  down  to  pictures  ?  the  worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary  ?  or 


29 


the  use  of  relics?  We  have  already  reported  to  you,  that  more 
than  one  individual  has  informed  us  that  he  has  been  instructed 
by  Mr.  Southgate,  that  it  is  his  duty  to  do  all  these  things,  pro¬ 
vided  he  is  so  commanded  by  his  bishop.  And  we  can  refer  to 
his  own  printed  communications  to  show  that  he  sees  very  little, 
if  anything,  that  is  wrong  in  the  forms  and  ceremonies  of  these 
Eastern  churches — if  they  were  only  animated  by  a  new  “  spiritual 
life.”  What,  then,  can  his  protestations  amount  to  ? 

On  page  20th,  Mr.  Southgate  gives  a  most  unsatisfactory  ex¬ 
planation  of  the  meaning  of  a  certain  passage  in  the  letter  of  ‘‘  the 
seven  bishops.”  On  this  subject  we  have  to  state,  that,  at  a 
formal  conference  with  Mr.  S.,  we  once  referred  to  the  great  unfair¬ 
ness  of  the  bishops,  in  thus  sanctioning  the  use  of  the  terms 
Lutheran  and  Calvinist,  as  applied  to  us,  here  in  the  East ;  and 
we  distinctly  declared  to  Mr.  S.  that  we  considered  him  respon¬ 
sible  for  the  injustice  that  was  thus  done  us,  as,  if  he  had  not  the 
dictation  of  that  letter,  he  at  least  must  have  known  what  it  con¬ 
tained,  and  could  have  had  it  altered.  To  all  this  he,  at  that 
time,  remained  perfectly  silent,  for  he  was,  no  doubt,  taken  some¬ 
what  by  surprise.  He  has  since  been  pressed  on  this  same  point 
in  public,  and  now  he  attempts  an  explanation  ;  though  to  us  it 
appears  that  it  would  have  been  better  for  him  to  have  remained 
silent. 

On  page  21st,  Mr.  S.  asserts  that  he  knows  of  “  one  plan  in 
particular,”  which  the  American  Board  has  on  the  mode  of 
conducting  their  Eastern  missions,”  which  it  has  never  published 
through  fear  of  losing  some  of  its  supporters.  We  are  ignorant 
of  any  such  concealed  plan,  and  we  would  like  to  have  Mr.  South- 
gate  called  upon  to  state  what  it  is. 

On  the  same  page,  and  also  elsewhere,  he  speaks  of  new  inter¬ 
pretations  being  put  upon  documents  which  have  been  unnoticed 
for  years.”  He  alludes  to  the  Instructions  of  Mr.  Vaughan  and 
Bishop  Griswold  to  him  and  Dr.  Robertson.  But  has  Mr.  S.  for¬ 
gotten  that  what  he  calls  a  “  new  interpretation,  is  precisely  the 
interpretation  we  gave  of  these  same  documents  as  soon  as  they 
came  before  the  public,  and  that,  at  that  very  time,  we  called  upon 
him  and  Dr.  Robertson  to  explain  them  ?  True,  these  documents 
have  not  been  noticed  in  public,  because  there  was  nothing  to  call 
for  such  a  notice  until  it  became  quite  clear,  from  the  course  pur¬ 
sued  by  Mr.  Southgate,  that  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  Instruc¬ 
tions  was  the  true  one,  and  that  it  was  time  to  lay  the  whole 
subject  before  the  public. 

On  page  23d,  Mr.  S.,  in  speaking  of  us,  declares  that  “  he  has 
seen  many  things  in  the  doings  of  the  missionaries,  which  seemed 
to  him  of  a  most  injurious  tendency  to  the  great  interests  of  truth 
and  pietyj^  We  think  this  declaration  implies  a  charge  of  a  very 

4 


30 


grave  character,  and  we  hope  Mr.  Southgate  will  be  called  upon 
to  state  definitely  what  he  has  thus  loosely  thrown  out  against  us. 
We  think  we  have  a  right  to  know  what  those  things  are  to  which 
he  alludes,  so  ‘‘  injurious  to  the  great  interests  of  truth  and 
piety. 

But  we  must  not  tax  your  patience  any  longer.  We  take  the 
liberty  of  requesting  that  if  this  communication  or  any  portion  of 
it  shall  be  published,  it  may  not  appear  as  a  full  answer  to  the 

Vindication  ”  of  Mr.  Southgate,  for  this  it  does  not  profess  to  be. 
We  have  aimed  to  notice  only  such  things  as  concerned  us  at  this 
station  ;  and  even  here  we  have  often  spoken  very  briefly,  or  said 
nothing,  believing  that  you  are  already  in  possession  of  documents 
sufficient  to  explain  those  particular  topics.  We  beg  leave  to 
assure  you  in  closing,  that  we  have  no  apprehension  of  losing  the 
confidence  of  our  patrons  through  such  efforts  as  this  of  Mr. 
Southgate  to  injure  us.  His  pamphlet,  we  doubt  not,  will  be 
duly  appreciated  by  those  whose  esteem  we  most  value. 

We  remain,  very  truly,  yours,  &c. 

W.  Goodell, 

H.  G.  O.  Dwight, 

W.  G.  SCHAUFFLER, 
Henry  A.  Homes, 

C.  Hamlin, 

G.  W.  Wood, 

H.  J.  Van  Lennep. 


APPENDIX. 


EXTRACTS  OF  A  LETTER  FROM  THE  MISSIONARIES  AT 
CONSTANTINOPLE,  DATED  DEC.  1,  1842. 


This  letter  was  written  soon  after  the  suspension  of  Mr.  Dwight’s  religious  service, 
and  in  fact  after  it  had  been  again  resumed  ;  but  while  the  event  was  yet  recent. 

Dear  Sir, — You  have  already  been  informed,  in  general  terms,  of  some 
recent  circumstances  of  an  unpleasant  nature  that  have  taken  place  among 
the  Armenians  of  this  city.  We  propose,  now,  as  a  station,  to  give  you  a 
detailed  account  of  them,  both  that  you  may  be  fully  informed  in  regard 
to  the  whole  matter,  and  also  that  a  record  of  these  events  may  be  preserv¬ 
ed  for  future  use  in  case  of  need.  We  would  gladly  draw  a  veil  of  oblivion 
over  transactions  so  little  creditable  to  those  who  have  been  actively  en¬ 
gaged  in  them  ;  but  some  of  the  circumstances  are  too  public  to  be  con¬ 
cealed,  and  a  satisfactory  explanation  of  what  is  already  before  the  world, 
demands  a  detailed  narration  of  events,  which  otherwise  we  might  have 
chosen  to  suppress.  You  have  been  told  that  two  Armenians,  who,  for  a 
course  of  years,  have  been  very  friendly  to  us,  have  suddenly  become  our 
enemies.  Formerly,  they  were  seekers  for  the  truth,  and  we  have  at  times 
had  the  hope  that  one  or  both  of  them  had  become  its  true  disciples.  Now, 
they  plead  strenuously  for  the  superstitions  of  their  church,  and  are  ready 
to  declare  war  against  every  one  who  even  intimates  that  there  are  idola¬ 
trous  practices  among  the  Armenians.  Formerly  they  resorted  to  us  fre¬ 
quently,  and  made  many  serious  inquiries  in  regard  to  the  truths  of  the 
Bible,  with  the  entire  confidence  of  those,  who,  conscious  of  their  own  ig¬ 
norance,  felt  assured  that  they  had  found  teachers  capable  of  guiding  them 
in  the  right  way.  Now  they  avoid  us  entirely,  as  if  we  were  some  evil 
and  pestiferous  thing,  and  if  they  happen  to  meet  one  of  us,  they  address 
us  only  in  pride  and  in  anger.  Formerly  they  commended  our  books,  our 
seminary,  and  our  labors  generally,  to  their  friends  and  neighbors  as  they 
had  opportunity.  Now,  they  take  special  opportunity  to  blacken  our  char¬ 
acters  in  every  way ;  calling  us  liars,  hypocrites,  deceivers  of  the  people, 
heretics  and  infidels,  and  warning  every  body  against  having  to  do  with  us, 
our  school,  or  our  books. 

You  will  wish  to  know  what  has  produced  this  change ;  and  on  this 
point  we  now  intend  to  give  you  all  the  light  we  have,  that  you  may,  if 
possible,  be  equally  qualified  with  us  to  judge  in  the  case. 

About  one  and  a  half  months  ago  we  heard  that  the  two  Armenians,  just 
spoken  of,  were  suddenly  very  much  enraged  against  us,  and,  on  inquiring 
the  cause,  were  told  that  they  had,  from  some  unknown  quarter,  been  put 
in  possession  of  a  translation  of  a  part  of  one  of  our  journals  published  in 


32 


the  Missionary  Herald,  in  which  we  speak  of  a  division  of  the  Armenian 
church.  {See  Mr.  Dwight's  journalin  the  Herald  for  Sept.,  1840.)  Their 
understanding  of  this  article  was  in  some  respects  quite  erroneous,  and  it 
was  evidently  just  the  occasion  they  had  so  long  wanted  to  get  hold  of 
something,  by  which  they  might  injure  us,  if  not  destroy  us.  We  imme¬ 
diately  sought  an  interview  with  them,  but  could  not  obtain  it.  We  soon 
learned,  however,  that  Mr.  Southgate  was  the  man  who  had  put  this  article 
into  their  hands.  He  had  showed  it  a  few  days  previously  to  Mr.  Panayotes, 
a  Greek,  who  has  long  been  in  our  employ,  and  told  him  that  if  those  ivere 
our  views  in  regard  to  dividing  the  Armenian  church,  he  should  feel  it  his 
duty  to  warn  the  people  against  us.  This  Mr.  Southgate  denies  having  said, 
though  Mr.  Panayotes,  in  whose  integrity  and  piety  we  have  the  fullest 
confidence,  still  affirms  that  he  did  say  it.  We  immediately  requested  an 
interview  with  Mr.  Southgate,  and  proposed  to  him  a  number  of  questions 
in  regard  to  this  aft'air.  He  acknowledged  having  translated  verbally  a 
part  of  the  article  in  question  to  G - ,  [one  of  the  Armenians  already  de¬ 

scribed.]  His  account  of  the  matter  was,  that,  a  few  days  previously,  he 
had  accidentally  fallen  upon  that  number  of  the  Missionary  Herald,  and 
read  the  article  in  question  for  the  first  time,  and  that  it  had  attracted  his 
attention  and  greatly  excited  his  surprise,  as  he  had  supposed  our  views  in 
regard  to  a  division  of  the  oriental  churches  were  very  different  from  those 
expressed  in  that  paper.  G.  happened  to  come  in  soon  after,  and  while  the 
thing  was  fresh  in  his  mind,  without  any  previous  thought,  or  any  evil  in¬ 
tention  against  us,  he  translated  it  to  that  individual  merely  for  the  purpose 
of  ascertaining  whether  he  had  understood  our  views  to  be  such  as  then 
expressed  ;  at  the  same  time  charging  him  not  to  mention  the  thing  to 
any  body  else  except  to  Mr.  Hohannes,  G.  himself  having  requested 

permission  to  do  so.  Afterwards  A - ,  [the  other  of  the  two,]  came  with 

G.  and  wished  to  see  the  article,  and  showed  that  he  had  received  some 
wrong  views  in  regard  to  the  article,  which  Mr.  S.  says  he  endeavored  to 
correct.  He  also  declares  that  he  then  endeavored  to  persuade  them  not 
to  let  the  matter  go  any  farther.  Mr.  S.  declined  entirely  answering  the 
question,  whether  he  knew  of  any  other  person  who  has  exerted  an  influ¬ 
ence  to  spread  this  thing  among  the  Armenians.  In  regard  to  this  ques¬ 
tion,  however,  we  would  state  the  following  facts,  which  may  throw  light 
upon  it.  A.  [one  of  these  two  Armenians]  declared  to  Mr.  Hohannes,  again 
and  again,  that  he  first  heard  of  the  printed  journal  through  an  Armenian, 
whose  name  he  would  not  mention,  but  says  it  was  not  from  G.  There  is 
an  Armenian  young  man,  who  has  been  in  the  habit  of  attending  our  Ar¬ 
menian  service  and  who  knows  English,  whose  father,  we  have  learned, 
is  calling  us  by  many  hard  names,  and  it  is  evident  that  his  mind  has  been 
filled  wiih  prejudices  by  some  foreigner.  Mr.  Southgate  himself  acknowl¬ 
edged  that  G.  and  A.  have  the  above  named  number  of  the  Missionary 
Heiald  in  their  hands,  but  he  denies  having  given  it  to  them.  Mr.  Badger 
was  living  at  Mr.  Southgate’s  house  at  the  time,  and  we  know  that  he  had 
seen  that  number  of  the  Herald,  and  we  know  also  from  one  witness,  and 
that  one  an  Episcopalian,  that  he  had  threatened  to  inflict  a  blow  upon  us, 
which  should  cause  us  to  repent  of  having  come  out  here,  and  that  he  de¬ 
clared  to  Mr.  Southgate,  that  “  the  American  bishops  ought  to  unite  with 
those  of  England  in  making  such  representations  to  the  ecclesiastical  au¬ 
thorities  of  this  country,  as  would  lead  them  to  drive  us  all  out.”  We 
know,  also,  that  the  Jacobite  bishop  of  Mosul,  who  has  been  staying  a  good 
deal  at  Mr.  Southgate’s  house,  was  about  that  time  in  the  bazaars  with  a 
tertain  Frank  (name  not  known,)  and  as  they  were  buying  something 
from  an  Armenian  young  man,  a  perfect  stranger,  the  Frank  asked  the 
young  man  to  what  nation  he  belonged.  When  told  that  he  was  an  Ar¬ 
menian,  the  Frank  said,  There  are  some  Americans  who  have  come  here 
and  opened  a  meeting  for  the  Armenians,  and  are  going  to  divide  the  Ar¬ 
menian  church  j  why  dont  you  rise  up  and  drive  them  out  of  the  country  ?” 


33 


The  young  man  was  astonished  at  being  addressed  in  this  abrupt  manner, 
on  such  a  subject,  in  the  bazaars,  and  by  a  stranger;  and  he  told  it  to  one 
of  our  friends^  who  told  it  to  us.  You  have  the  same  means  of  forming  a 
probable  conjecture  as  to  who  that  Frank  might  be  as  we,  since  we  have 
told  you  that  the  Jacobite  bishop  was  with  him,  and  that  both  the  bishop 
and  Mr.  Badger  w’ere  at  that  very  lime  residing  with  Mr.  Southgate.  In 
regard  to  Mr.  Southgate’s  alleged  reasons  for  what  he  did,  we  can  only  say 
that  they  were  entirely  unsatisfactory.  He  declares  that  he  accidentally 
fell  upon  the  article,  for  the  first  time,  a  few  days  before  our  interview  with 
him ;  whereas,  in  a  consultation,  called  for  by  Dr.  Robertson  and  Mr. 
Southgate  a  year  ago  or  more,  Dr.  R.  brought  lorward  that  very  article  as 
an  evidence  that  we  are  not  so  conservative  in  our  principles  as  we  had 
professed,  and  it  was  talked  about  and  explained  by  us  apparently  to  their 
satisfaction.  Mr.  Vaughan  also  referred  to  the  same  article  in  his  letter  to 
Professor  Pond,  and  it  is  most  likely  had  written  also  to  his  missionaries 
here  in  regard  to  it.  At  any  rate,  we  know  positively  that  they  had  read  it 
a  year  ago,  and  now  Mr.  Southgate  professes  never  to  have  seen  it  until 
quite  lately,  and  that  by  accident !  Again,  his  reason  for  showing  it  to  the 
Armenians  was  altogether  unsatisfactory,  and  contradictory  to  what  he  him¬ 
self  said  to  Mr.  Panayotes.  If  he  wished  to  understand  our  views,  why 
should  he  go  to  an  Armenian  to  ask  an  explanation  of  what  he  understood 
them  to  be  1  We  can  conceive  of  no  other  object  that  he  could  have  had 
in  view,  but  of  exciting  prejudices  against  us  in  that  man’s  mind ;  unless 
we  suppose  it  was  altogether  a  hasty,  unpremeditated  act,  of  which  he 
repented  the  next  moment.  But,  in  the  first  place,  Mr.  Southgate  is  not  a 
hasty  man.  He  acts,  usually,  with  thought  and  deliberation,  and  he  under¬ 
stands  well  the  genius  of  the  people  with  whom  we  have  to  deal  in  these 
countries.  In  the  second  place,  he  has  the  example  of  Athens  fresh  before 
him,  and  was,  of  course,  most  intimately  acquainted  with  all  the  disastrous 
consequences  of  a  publication  of  one  of  Mrs.  Hill’s  letters  in  a  Greek 
newspaper.  And  in  the  third  place,  we  have  to  this  day  not  seen,  in  what 
Mr.  b.  has  said  or  done,  the  slightest  evidence  that  he  regrets  the  part  he 
took  in  this  transaction  or  the  results  of  it.  He  even  commends  the  present 
spirit  of  the  two  Armenians  above  mentioned,  saying  that  they  appear  to 
him  to  be  now  in  about  the  right  position  of  mind ;  while  they  are  daily 
and  continually  manifesting  the  most  outrageous  spirit,  full  of  pride, 
enmity  and  bitterness,  and  are  pleading  for  all  the  idolatry  of  their  church. 
iNior  can  Mr.  S.  be  ignorant  of  this ;  for  we  know'  it  to  be  a  fact,  that,  at  this 
very  time,  they  are  having  frequent  intercourse  wfith  him.  It  is  true  that 
Mr.  Southgate,  at  one  consultation,  promised,  after  some  hesitation,  that  he 
W’ould  see  those  two  Armenians,  and  tell  them  that  he  is  satisfied  that  w'e 
have  no  intention  of  dividing  the  Armenian  church  ;  but  if  we  may  judge 
of  the  manner  in  w'hich  he  fulfilled  the  promise,  from  the  impression  left 
on  the  minds  of  the  disafiected  by  what  he  said,  w'e  cannot  suppose  that 
he  is  ready  to  take  much  pains  to  heal  the  breach  which  he  has  made. 
One  of  the  individuals  referred  to,  on  being  asked  by  one  of  us  w'hether 
Mr.  S.  had  communicated  anything  to  them  on  this  subject,  replied, — '•*  \  es, 
he  said  that  he  now  does  not  believe  that  your  plan  is  to  divide  the  Arme¬ 
nian  church,  and  that  you  acknowledged  that  you  were  sorry  you  wrote  that 
journal,  which  was  done  in  the  midst  of  excitement  and  passion  occa¬ 
sioned  by  the  persecution !  ”  We  of  course  have  no  means  of  knowing 
exactly  what  Mr.  S.  did  say  to  them  except  from  w'hat  they  say,  from 
which  it  is  very  evident  that  between  them  and  Mr.  S.  there  is  a  misrepre¬ 
sentation.  In  the  article  in  the  Herald,  of  which  he  translated  a  part  to 
these  Armenians,  there  is  a  distinct  declaration,  twice  repeated,  that  we  are 
to  have  nothing  to  do  with  dividing  the  Armenian  church.  This  he  never 
translated  to  them  !  but  said  that  we  wrote  to  our  Society  saying  that 
the  present  is  not  a  favorable  time  for  a  division,  but  that  when  the  number 
of  enlightened  Armenians  shall  increase,  the  separation  may  be  effected, 


34 


by  presenting  a  petition  through  some  ambassador  to  the  Porte,  to  have  the 
Evangelical  party  set  off,  and  a  new  patriarch  appointed  over  them.  If  you 
will  take  the  pains  to  refer  to  the  journal  in  question,  as  printed  in  the 
Herald,  you  will  see  how  distorted  a  view  this  translation  is  of  the  meaning 
of  the  original. 

The  disaffected  Armenians  have  evidently  been  told  by  somebody,  a 
number  of  things  in  regard  to  us  calculated  greatly  to  prejudice  their 
minds ;  such  as  that  we  are  not  ordained ;  that  we  are  Lutherans  and  Cal¬ 
vinists  ;  that  we  are  erroneous  in  our  theological  opinions :  that  we  are  divided 
into  many  sects ;  &c.  We  took  occasion  to  ask  Mr.  Southgate,  at  the  inter¬ 
view  we  had  with  him,  whether  he  had  been  the  means  of  communicating 
these  things  to  their  minds  ?  His  uniform  reply  to  our  questions  on  these 
topics  was,  that  he  did  not  remember  ever  having  said  exactly  so.  He  pre¬ 
sumed  that  if  the  question  had  ever  been  asked  him  by  a  native  whether 
he  regarded  us  as  regularly  ordained,  he  had  probably  said  “no.”  He  did 
not  know  that  he  had  ever  said  that  we  were  Calvinists  and  Lutherans, 
though  he  remembered  once  that  an  Armenian  advanced  a  certain  opinion 
in  regard  to  the  Lord’s  Supper,  when  he  replied  to  him,  “  That  was  Calvin’s 
view  of  the  subject.”  In  regard  to  this  we  would  say  that  with  Mr.  S.’s 
views  on  the  subject,  it  can  hardly  be  otherwise  than  that  he  should  take 
favorable  opportunities  to  state  to  the  people  such  things  as  the  above  with 
regard  to  us.  The  very  fact  that  he  does  not  remember,  shows  that  his  prin¬ 
ciples  would  allow  him  to  speak  to  our  prejudice  in  this  way  among  the 
people  here,  otherwise  he  would  have  remembered,  positively,  that  he  never 
did  such  a  thing.  His  colleague  Dr.  Robertson,  on  one  occasion,  to  our 
knowledge,  when  conversing  with  some  Armenians  in  regard  to  us,  and 
they  ventured  to  assert  that  we  are  regularly  ordained,  became  much 
excited,  and  raising  both  hands  said  with  a  loud  voice — “  They  are  no 
priests ;  they  are  no  priests ;  I  am  a  priest,  but  they  are  no  priests  !  ”  He 
meant,  of  course,  that  we  are  not  ordained ;  for  we  never  pretended  to  be 
priests,  and  he  know^s  well,  that,  according  to  our  views,  there  are  no  priests 
on  earth,  under  the  Christian  dispensation. 

Mr.  Southgate  professed,  at  our  interview,  as  he  had  in  fact  before  done, 
to  feel  a  deep  interest  in  our  labors  here.  He  remarked  that  he  had  “no 
doubt  that  the  work  going  on  here  among  the  Armenians  is  the  work  of 
God.”  He  even  admitted  with  us  that,  in  case  the  members  of  the  Eastern 
churches  were  not  permitted  to  worship  God  according  to  their  own  con¬ 
sciences,  and  were  persecuted  for  their  love  of  the  truth,  and  must  either 
sacrifice  the  truth,  or  separate,  it  would  become  their  duty  to  separate. 
“  Otherwise,”  said  he,  “  I  must  condemn  the  Reformation  in  Europe.” 
This  is  precisely  the  ground  that  we  have  taken ;  and  it  is  the  only  thing 
intended  in  the  printed  journal  referred  to,  which  was  written  in  the  midst 
of  persecution  for  the  tiuth’s  sake. 

As  to  the  effects  of  this  movement  thus  far,  we  cannot  see  that  they  have 
been  very  disastrous.  Every  effort  has  been  made  by  the  two  disaffected 
individuals  to  sour  the  minds  of  the  enlightened  Armenians  ajzainst  us;  but 
hitherto,  so  far  as  w’^e  know,  without  the  slightest  success.  We  record  this 
remarkable  fact  with  a  sense  of  devout  gratitude  to  God,  who  has  thus  pre¬ 
served  his  people  from  being  torn  by  the  devouring  wolves.  Some,  who 
were  before  our  enemies,  have  taken  new  courage,  and  probably  some 
(perhaps  many)  of  the  ignorant  and  bigoted  class  have  become  more  preju¬ 
diced  against  us,  but  so  far  as  we  can  ascertain  not  one  of  our  brethren,  or 
of  those  who  were  in  the  habit  of  attending  our  services,  has  been  at  all 
unfavorably  affected  in  regard  to  us.  On  the  contrary  they  seem  to  under¬ 
stand  the  whole  matter  with  wonderful  clearness,  and,  without  any  explana¬ 
tion  from  us,  place  it  upon  the  right  ground  ;  and  they  have  received  such 
a  lesson  on  the  nature  of  high  church  principles  as  they  will  probably  never 
forget.  Our  public  service  was  for  a  time  suspended,  with  the  hope  that 
the  two  individuals  might  be  conciliated ;  but  we  have  now  become  satis- 


35 


fied  that  it  is  useless  to  make  the  least  attempt  to  bring  them  to  terms.  In 
the  meantime,  the  Armenians  were  never  more  free  in  visiting  us,  and  never 
more  importunate  that  we  should  have  a  public  preaching  service,  which 
has  now,  at  their  earnest  solicitation,  been  resumed.  Our  books,  also,  were 
never  in  greater  demand.  In  short  there  are  no  signs  of  fear  among  our 
friends  generally,  and  many  of  them  matjifest  a  readiness  to  suffer,  if  need 
be,  for  the  name  of  Christ.  What  they  would  do  if  brought  to  a  test,  we 
cannot  say,  but  of  some  of  them  we  have  the  hope  that,  by  the  grace  of 
God,  they  would  endure  to  the  end,  even  though  visited  by  persecutions 
and  death. 


EXTRACTS  OF  A  LETTER  FROM  THE  MISSIONARIES  AT 
CONSTANTINOPLE,  DATED  FEB.  7,  1844. 

After  Mr.  Southgate  had  seen  the  reports  of  Dr.  Anderson’s  remarks  in  reply  to  the 
interrogatories  put  to  him  at  Rochester,  and  also  his  reply  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Epis¬ 
copal  Board,  he  addressed  a  letter  to  the  missionaries  at  Constantinople,  which  led  to 
a  correspondence.  A  copy  of  this  correspondence  was  transmitted  to  the  Secretaries 
of  the  American  Board,  with  the  letter  from  which  the  following  extracts  are  made. 

Dear  Sir, — You  will  receive,  with  this,  a  copy  of  a  correspondence  be¬ 
tween  Mr.  Southgate  and  your  missionaries  at  this  station,  to  which  I  have 
been  appointed  to  append  some  explanations.  You  will  perceive  that 
Mr.  S.  in  his  first  letter,  states  three  charges,  which,  he  says,  were  made 
against  him  by  yourself  at  the  last  meeting  of  the  American  Board  in 
Rochester,  and  he  calls  upon  us  to  say,  Whether  these  charges  have  been 
or  are  preferred  by  our  mission,  or  members  of  our  mission  in  this  city ; 
and  if  so,  upon  what  grounds  they  are  based.”  You  will  also  see  from  our 
reply,  that  we  declined  answering  his  questions ;  on  the  ground,  that  if  we 
did  so,  or  entered  into  any  explanations  of  the  subject,  that  would  imply, 
that  we  might  be  held  responsible  for  charges  made  against  him  by  another, 
in  which  no  reference  was  made  to  us  as  the  authors  of  those  charges ;  a 
principle,  which  we  could  by  no  means  allow.  And  furthermore,  we  learned 
from  Mr.  S.  himself,  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Foreign  Missionary  Commit¬ 
tee  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  the  United  States  had  written  to 
you,  asking  on  what  authority  you  had  preferred  those  charges ;  and,  for 
aught  that  we  knew  to  the  contrary,  you  had  made  known  to  him  the 
grounds  on  which  the  charges  had  been  made.  At  any  rate,  while  you 
were  the  proper  person  to  be  called  upon  to  explain  your  own  remarks,  it 
was  evidently  highly  improper  to  demand  from  us  an  explanation.  Rather 
than  yield  the  principle  that  we  are  not  to  be  held  responsible  for  the  state¬ 
ments  of  others,  nor  to  be  called  upon  for  an  explanation  of  any  such  state¬ 
ments,  we  preferred  to  subject  ourselves  to  the  charge  of  a  want  of  open¬ 
ness  and  frankness,  which  Mr.  S.  preferred  against  us  in  his  second  letter. 
Whatever  we  have  written  to  you,  as  a  station,  in  reference  to  Mr.  S.’s 
doings  here,  we  still  believe  to  be  strictly  true.  We  have  no  evidence  that 
a  single  fact  was  mis-stated,  and  we  would  retract  nothing  of  all  that  we 
have  said,  so  far  as  the  facts  in  the  case  are  concerned.  And  we  stand 
ready  to  take  the  responsibility  before  the  public,  whenever  the  proper  time 
shall  come,  of  all  the  statements  we  have  made. 

Before  proceeding  to  notice  particular  passages  in  Mr.  S.’s  letters,  you 
will  permit  us  to  direct  your  attention  to  the  principles  of  action  he  avows 
in  reference  to  other  missionaries.  It  seems  to  us,  that  we  have  here,  from 
his  own  mouth,  a  virtual  confession  that  all  we  have  charged  against  him  is 


36 


true,  and  that  this  will  enable  us  to  explain^some  things,  which  otherwise 
might  appear  to  be  inexplicable.  In  his  second  letter,  he  says,  As  to  my 
general  views  and  course,  (which  were  made — farther  perhaps  than  pro¬ 
priety  warranted — the  subject  of  a  desultory  conversalion  at  the  conference,) 
it  would  never  enter  my  mind  to  seek  for  them  the  approbation  of  any  others 
on  earth,  than  the  committee  or  the  church  to  which  I  am  responsible.'’ 

Again,  in  the  same  letter,  he  says,  “  Permit  me  to  add,  that  the  only  mo¬ 
tive  of  my  former  communication  to  Mr.  Goodell  was,  to  take  a  step  towards 
bringing  out  clearly  my  position,  which  is,  to  represent  my  own  church,  and 
do  the  work  committed  to  me,  without  assuming  hostility  towards,  or  speak¬ 
ing  evil  of,  the  missionaries  of  other  denominations.  I  have  taken  this 
position  solely  from  the  conviction,  (to  which  1  have  been  led  by  earnest 
prayer  and  reflection,)  that  it  can  only  be,  under  common  circumstances,  a 
detriment  to  the  cause  of  our  blessed  Savior,  to  present  to  the  Eastern 
Christians  a  spectacle  of  strife  and  contention.” 

‘‘  Having  assumed  this  position,  I  shall  not  abandon  it  for  any  less  cause 
than  that  which  induced  me  to  take  it.  When  the  interests  of  the  Redeem¬ 
er’s  kingdom  appear  to  me  to  be  receiving  injury  from  any  acts  of  yours,  or 
of  others,  I  trust  that  I  shall  not  hesitate  to  use  my  utmost  influence  to  avert 
the  evil ;  and  in  such  case,  I  would  know  no  difference,  unless  it  might  be 
in  the  particular  mode  of  proceeding,  between  a  missionary  of  my  own 
church  and  another.” 

If  these  passages  have  any  meaning,  it  is  this,  that  Mr.  S.  has  deliber¬ 
ately  and  prayerfully  made  up  his  mind  not  to  assume  hostility  towards 
or  speak  evil  of  us,”  unless  in  his  view,  the  interests  of  the  Redeemer’s 
kingdom  require  it :  and  that,  if  at  any  lime,  the  course  of  measures  we 
adopt,  in  endeavoring  to  reform  these  corrupt  churches,  should,  in  his  view, 
threaten  injury  to  the  Redeemer’s  kingdom,  he  should  feel  called  upon  to 
use  his  utmost  influence  to  avert  the  evil.  And  we  have  an  illustration  of 
his  principle,  as  we  suppose,  in  what  he  actually  did  when  he  translated  a 
portion  of  the  Herald  to  some  of  the  Armenians.  We  had  a  preaching  ser¬ 
vice  every  Sabbath,  among  the  Armenians.  This  he  regarded  as  one  step 
towards  producing  schism,  which,  in  his  estimation,  is  one  of  the  greatest 
of  all  evils  that  could  threaten  these  Eastern  churches.  That  he  did  so 
regard  our  meeting,  he  himself  declared  to  us.  What,  therefore,  could  be 
more  natural,  or  more  consistent  with  his  own  avowed  principles,  than  for 
him  to  “  use  his  utmost  influence  to  avert  this  evil,”  i.  e.  to  break  up  our 
meeting.  This  we  suppose  was  one  object  he  had  in  view,  and  perhaps 
the  principal  one,  when  he  translated  from  the  Herald  to  some  Armenians 
a  passage  which  seemed  to  him  clearly  to  show  that  our  design  is  to  divide 
the  Armenian  church.  We  have  some  collateral  testimony  on  this  point 
to  which  we  must  briefly  refer  you.  The  two  Armenians  to  whom  he 
showed  the  Herald,  and  who,  from  that  time,  assumed  an  attitude  of  decided 
hostility  to  us,  were  immediately  clamorous  for  the  relinquishment  of  this 
meetirig.  One  of  them  had  before  advised  that  the  meeting  be  suspended, 
ostensibly  in  order  to  conciliate  some  "worldly  men  whom  he  hoped,  by  this 
means,  to  gain  over  to  the  truth.  But  now,  for  the  first  time,  we  heard  from 
them,  that  if  this  meeting  was  continued,  there  would  inevitably  he  a  division 
in  the  Armenian  church,  and  we  were  referred,  by  them,  to  examples  in  past 
ages,  where  similar  meetings  have  resulted  in  division  5  that  is,  during  the 
Reformation  in  Europe.  Until  that  moment,  we  had  supposed  these  men 
to  be  entirely  ignorant  of  Church  History,  and,  especially,  of  the  History  of 
the  Reformation ;  but  now  they  seemed  to  have  been  taking  lessons  from 
some  one,  "who  was  capable  of  teaching  them,  and  their  acquaintance  with 
the  subject  of  the  schisms  that  have  taken  place  in  the  church,  was  sur¬ 
prising  to  us.  Who  their  teacher  was,  we  are  not  able  positively  to  say, 
though  he  was  certainly  very  industrious,  just  at  that  particular  time.  Per¬ 
haps  we  may  obtain  some  light  on  this  subject  from  a  paragraph  of  an 
article  over  the  signature  H.  jn  the  New  York  Observer  for  December  2, 


37 


1843.  The  writer  is  evidently  in  possession  of  original  documents  from 
Mr.  Southgate,  and  it  is  possible  he  may  be  the  Secretary  of  the  Episcopal 
Foreign  Missionary  Committee  himself,  as  there  is  an  official  air  in  his 
mode  of  writing.  He  assures  the  public,  ‘Hhat  a  suspension  of  the  meet¬ 
ings  of  the  missionaries  of  the  American  Board  had  been  under  discussion 
among  the  Armenisins  for  four  months  before’’  Mr.  S.  translated  the  pas¬ 
sage  from  the  Herald.  It  seems  then  not  only  that  there  had  been  dis¬ 
cussion  on  this  subject,  but  that  Mr.  Southgate  was  knowing  to  it,  and  not 
only  so,  but  that  he  was  so  intimately  acquainted  with  the  matter,  as  to  be 
able  to  state  the  precise  time  when  the  discussion  about  discontinuing  the 
meetings  commenced,  namely,  just  four  months  before  he  translated  the  para¬ 
graphs  from  the  Herald  !  Pei  haps  he  might  also  state,  if  he  were  disposed, 
exactly  how  the  discussion  originated,  and  what  means  were  used  to  give  it 
the  right  shape  and  direction  so  as  to  produce  the  desired  result,  of  breaking 
up  these  meetings.  At  any  rate,  though  we  cannot  prove  that  Mr.  S.  him¬ 
self  did  originate  the  thought  among  the  Armenians  that  those  meetings 
would  produce  schism,  we  know  that  he  had  the  thought  in  his  own  mind; 
for,  as  we  have  said,  he  once  avowed  it  to  us  ;  and  w'e  gather  from  the 
paragraph  referred  to  that  he  was  at  least  privy  to  those  discussions  ;  and 
if  he  did  lend  a  helping  hand  in  any  way  to  bring  them  to  the  point  which 
the  enemies  of  the  light  and  truth  have  always  so  much  desired,  namely, 
to  secure  the  suspension  of  our  meetings,  he  only  acted  in  accordance  with 
his  own  avowed  principles  of  action.^  It  should  be  stated  in  this  connec¬ 
tion,  that  Mr.  S.’s  avowed  field  of  labors  has  always  been  among  the  Greeks 
and  the  Jacobites,  and  that  he  has  ever  disclaimed  any  purpose  of  laboring 
among  the  Armenians.  How  then  does  he  know  so  well  what  the  private 
views  of  the  Armenians  are,  and  what  topics  of  discussion  come  up  pri¬ 
vately  among  them. 

We  have  a  few  remarks  to  make  on  the  principles  of  action  towards 
other  missionaries,  avowed  by  Mr.  S.,  and  quoted  above  from  his  own  letter. 
He  says,  that  when  the  interests  of  the  Redeemer’s  kingdom  appear  to 
him  to  be  receiving  injury  from  any  acts  of  ours,  he  should  not  hesitate  to 
use  his  utmost  influence  to  avert  the  evil.”  Here  is  a  principle  which,  in 
the  abstract,  is  correct,  and  upon  which  we  ever  desire  to  act  in  regard  to 
others.  But  the  question  is,  how  does  Mr.  S.  intend  to  apply  it  in  actual 
practice  ?  And  here  facts  compel  us  to  say,  we  have  reason  to  believe  that 
with  him  “  the  Redeemer’s  kingdom”  means  the  Episcopal  church,  and  that 
any  evil  appearing  to  threaten  Episcopacy,  would  rouse  him  to  make  the 
necessary  counteracting  efforts.  We  do  not  impeach  his  honesty  in  this, 
nor  do  we  suppose  that  he  considered  us  as  having  no  part  in  the  Redeem¬ 
er’s  kingdom  because  we  are  out  of  the  pale  of  the  episcopal  church ;  but 
his  church  principles  require  him  to  regard  Episcopacy  as  essential  to  the  full 
development  and  extension  and  glory  of  Christianity,  and  therefore  any 
attempt  to  ward  off  evils  from  Episcopacy  is  to  endeavor  to  preserve  the 
Redeemer’s  kingdom  from  detriment.  He,  therefore,  would  have  no  diffi¬ 
culty  in  opposing  us,  although  he  might  allow  that  we  are  good  men,  and 
doing  good,  provided  he  believed  that  our  labors  tend  to  bring  the  episcopal 
form  of  government  into  danirer.  In  such  a  case,  it  would  matter  not  to 
him,  that  we  receive  and  preach  the  pure  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  unmixed 
with  any  important  error,  so  long  as  he  felt  that  our  measures  were  sub¬ 
versive  of  the  episcopal  form  and  order.  Thus,  his  motives  may  be  as 
pure  as  were  those  of  Saul  of  Tarsus,  who  verily  thought  that  he  was  doing 
God  service  by  persecuting  the  Church  of  Christ ;  but  like  him,  his  zeal 
may  be  entirely  misapplied,  and  e.xceedingly  injurious  in  its  results. 

Acting  on  this  principle,  he  used  the  Herald  as  he  did.  Acting  on  the 
same  principle,  no  doubt,  he,  some  months  subsequei  tly,  represented  to 
another  pious  native,  as  the  individual  himself  told  us,  that  some  of  our 


*  We  knoiu  that  at  that  very  time  the  disaffected  individuals  were  frequently  at  Mr. 
Southgate’s  house. 


38 


books  are  very  pernicious ;  pointing  out  one  in  particular,  in  -which  the 
doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  alone,  without  the  deeds  of  the  law,  is 
very  plainly  inculcated. Acting  on  the  same  principle,  probably,  he 
showed  to  the  Syrian  bishop  of  Mosul,  who  has  been  for  some  years  in 
Constantinople,  a  portion  of  one  of  Mr.  Hinsdale’s  published  journals  or 
letters,  where  Mr.  H.  speaks  of  the  superstitions  of  the  Jacobite  church; 
Mr.  Southgate  at  the  same  time  remarking  to  the  bishop  something  to  this 
effect ;  “  You  see  how  those  missionaries  blacken  your  church.”  We  have 
this  on  the  authority  of  Mr.  Laurie.  From  all  this,  it  is  evident  that  the 
apologist  for  Mr.  Southgate,  whose  article  in  the  New  York  Observer  has 
already  been  alluded  to,  was  mistaken  when  he  said  that  “  the  only  act  of 
seeming  hostility  on  the  part  of  Mr.  S.  was  the  reading  to  a  pious  Arme¬ 
nian,  a  friend  of  the  missionaries  of  the  American  Board,  &c.  an  article 
from  the  Missionary  Herald.”  While  that  act  and  the  consequences  of  it 
were  still  fresh  in  his  mind,  he  endeavored  to  prejudice  the  mind  of  another 
friend  of  the  missionaries,”  as  we  have  stated  above,  by  representing  to 
him  that  some  of  our  books  are  of  a  pernicious  tendency.  Fortunately 
that  friend  was  enlightened  and  stable  enough  to  resist  such  attacks ;  but  if 
his  mind  had  become  soured,  like  the  others,  and  he,  like  them,  had  turned 
against  us,  and  joined  Mr.  S.  in  his  views  of  the  pernicious  tendency  of 
our  books  and  our  meetings,  no  doubt  Mr.  S.,  if  called  upon  by  us  to  ex¬ 
plain  his  conduct,  would  have  said,  that  he  had  no  intention  of  injuring  us, 
and  was  actuated  by  perfectly  pure  motives  in  what  he  had  done.  And  he 
might  have  added,  (though  we  confess  that  we  do  not  see  with  what  face 
he  could  have  said  it  the  second  time,)  that  he  supposed  the  individual,  to 
whom  he  had  thus  spoken  in  regard  to  our  books,  was  a  friend  of  ours,  and 
would  make  no  bad  use  of  wFat  he  said.  If  we  allow  that  in  the  first  in¬ 
stance  he,  through  want  of  proper  reflection  of  what  might  be  the  conse¬ 
quences,  communicated  that  article  in  the  Herald  to  those  whom  he  thought 
to  be  stable  friends  of  ours,  w’e  should  have  expected  to  see  in  him  some 
marks  of  sorrow  at  the  results,  and  some  disposition  to  repair  the  injury 
that  had  followed.  What  then  shall  we  say  when,  instead  of  this,  we  find 
that  those  very  men  whom  he  has  thus  disaffected,  and  who  are  using  their 
utmost  influence  against  us,  are  on  terms  of  the  greatest  intimacy  with 
him  ;  that  he  speaks  approvingly  of  their  course;  and  that  he  actually  be¬ 
comes  so  far  connected  with  them,  as  to  send  the  adopted  son  of  one  of 
them,  who  was  a  member  of  our  seminary  at  the  time,  to  America  to  be 
educated  by  the  Episcopalians.  And  what  must  we  think  when,  a  few 
months  afterwards,  we  learn,  that  with  the  consequences  of  his  former  in¬ 
discretion  in  speaking  thus  to  our  friends  fresh  in  mind,  he  makes  another 
attempt,  in  another  quarter,  to  work  upon  the  mind  of  another  friend^  by 
representing  our  books  to  be  heretical  and  dangerous  !  In  our  sober  judg¬ 
ments  we  must  say,  that  we  think  it  will  be  difficult  for  him  to  satisfy  any 
candid  mind  that  he  is  not  deliberately  and  designedly  working  against  us. 
The  individual  upon  whom  the  last  attempt  was  made,  it  is  true,  is  a 
Greek ;  and  Jest  a  resort  should  be  had  to  this  fact  in  order  to  shield  Mr.  S. 
from  the  charge  of  hostility  to  ws, — the  Greeks  being  considered  as  more 
properly  belonging  to  his  sphere, — we  will  say,  that  this  brother  has  been 
employed  by  us,  in  different  departments  of  labor,  but  chiefly  as  a  trans¬ 
lator,  ever  since  the  Constantinople  station  was  first  established.  Being  a 
pious  man,  he  is  naturally  drawn  more  to  the  Armenians  than  to  his  own 
people  ;  and  in  fact  he  is  much  among  them,  laboring  for  their  good,  and 
his  influence  over  them  is  exceedingly  important.  From  his  long  and  well- 
linown  connection  with  us,  and  from  his  personal  character,  there  is  not  an 

*  This  tract  was  written  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Johnston,  and  it  is  considered  by  ns  as 
one  of  our  best  tracts,  and  contains  a  most  lucid  view  of  the  great  doctrine  of  the 
Reformation — salvation  by  faith  tcithout  the  deeds  of  the  law.  We  may  add  that  it  has 
been  examined  arid  approved  by  the  Committee  of  the  American  Tract  Society,  of 
wdiich  Dr.  Milnor  is  a  member.  Mr.  Southgate  remarked  to  our  Greek  friend,  “  The 
doctrine  of  that  tract  is  not  the  doctrine  of  your  church,  nor  mine.”  The  Greek  re¬ 
plied,  “  The  standards  both  of  your  church  and  mine  inculcate  that  doctrine.” 


39 


individual  among  all  our  Armenian  acquaintances,  who  could  exert  so 
extensive  an  influence  agaiust  us  in  the  Armenian  community  as  he  could, 
if  he  should  by  any  means  get  his  mind  piejudiced.  Mr.  S.  is  perfectly 
well  acquainted  with  his  standing  and  influence.  And  besides,  though  he 
had  been  a  common  Greek,  having  no  connection  with  us,  and  Mr.  S.  had 
made  such  remarks  to  him  against  our  books,  though  the  consequences  of 
his  laboring  against  us  would  have  been  less  to  be  dreaded,  yet  the  evidence 
of  Mr.  S.’s  hostility  to  our  labors  would  not  have  been  less  convincing. 
For  no  candid  man  can  perceive  the  least  real  difference  between  an  effort 
on  the  part  of  Mr.  S.  directly  to  prejudice  the  iVrmenians,  and  an  attempt 
to  do  so  through  the  agency  of  a  Greek. 

Mr.  S.,  as  you  will  perceive,  makt-s  it  a  point  of  great  importance  to 
establish  it  as  a  fact,  and  to  draw  from  us  a  concession  of  the  fact,  that  his 
motives  in  that  particular  act  of  translating  the  Herald  to  the  Armenians, 
were  good,  and  that  he  had  no  personal  feelings  of  hostility  to  us.  And  he 
makes  much  of  the  fact  that  some  of  us  did,  in  so  many  words,  acknowl¬ 
edge  our  satisfaction  on  this  point,  at  our  conference.  In  regard  to  this  we 
would  say,  that  we  do  not  see  v/hat  real  advantage  it  is  to  him  for  us  to 
allow  that  personally  he  is  not  our  enemy,  or  that  we  believe  that  he  thinks 
he  is  doing  God  service  in  opposing  our  labors.  It  may  often  happen,  that 
political  and  theological  antagonists  are  personal  ft  lends.  The  simple 
question  between  us  is,  whether  he  has  actually  and  from  design  (what¬ 
ever  may  be  the  motive,)  opposed  our  labors;  and  of  this,  we  think  there 
are  conclusive  proofs.  And  if,  at  the  conference  alluded  to  by  him,  any  of 
us  were  satisfied  by  his  plausible  statements,  that  he  performed  the  act  in 
question  rather  inadvertently,  and  not  with  a  positively  hostile  intent ;  we 
must  say,  that  the  manner  in  which  he  fulfilled  his  promise  of  endeavoring 
to  repair  the  injury  he  had  made,  and  his  whole  subsequent  course,  have 
effectually  removed  every  such  impression  from  our  minds.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  however,  we  were  never  satisfied  with  the  explanations  he  then  made, 
and  of  this  we  abundantly  assured  him  at  the  time.  It  remains  to  be  seen 
what  inference  the  enlightened  public  of  America  wdll  draw  from  the  facts 
in  the  case,  and  we  are  willitig  lor  the  present  to  refer  the  matter  to  their 
verdict.  We  might  indeed  adduce  other  evidences  of  his  opposition  to  us, 
not  as  individuals,  but  as  non-episcopal  missionaries.  One  of  these,  which 
has  no  inconsiderable  degree  of  weight,  is  the  general  impression  of  the 
Armenians  here.  All  who  know  anything  about  the  parties,  have  a  clear 
and  strong  impression,  that  he  is  inimical  to  us  ;  and  this  they  have  got 
entirely  from  their  own  observation  of  the  case,  for  we  have,  up  to  the 
present  moment,  scrupulously  refrained  from  bringing  any  charges  against 
him  before  the  people  or  before  individuals.  It  is  not  long  since  another 
case  of  temporary  alienation  from  us  occurred,  in  an  individual  w’ho  was 
for  a  long  time  our  friend.  He  was  persuaded,  by  the  false  representations 
of  those  very  men  to  whom  Mr,  S.  showed  the  Herald,  that  we  are  wolves 
in  sheep's  clothing,  laboring  here  under  a  show  of  much  spirituality  and 
sanctity,  but  really  aiming  at  the  subversion  of  all  religion.  He  joined  that 
party,  and  for  a  w’hile  made  a  most  vigorous  effort  to  corrupt  the  minds  of 
our  brethren  among  the  Armenians  ; — reiterating  the  oft-repeated  stories 
that  we  have  no  regular  ordination ;  that  we  are  Lutherans  and  Calvinists; 
that  in  America  we  are  divided  into  numberless  sects  ;  &c.,  &c.*  He  did 
not  long  continue,  however,  in  this  w’ayward  course,  before  he  became  con¬ 
vinced  of  his  error,  and  he  speedily  returned  with  an  humble  confession  of 
his  fault,  and  has  ever  since  remained  our  friend.  In  a  conversation  wdth 
one  of  us,  since  his  return,  he,  of  his  own  accord,  alluded  to  Mr.  S.,  and 
expressed  the  greatest  wmnder  that  w^e  were  on  speaking  terms  wdth  him ; 
‘Hor,”  said  he,  '‘‘he  is  one  of  your  greatest  enemies.”  We  inquired  what 


*  We  heard  these  stories  for  the  Jirst  time,  immediately  after  the  Herald  had  been 
exposed,  and  from  the  mouths  of  those  very  men  to  whom  Mr.  S.  translated  the  Herald. 
One  of  them  said  of  us  to  Mr.  Panayotes,  “  We  thought  these  men  were  bishops.,  but 
behold  we  have  learned  that  they  are  not  2niests.  They  are  not  ordained  at  all  A 


40 


evidence  he  had  of  that.  He  said,  “  Mr.  S.  is  continually  talking  against 
you.”  This  is  only  a  single  case.*  We  have  testimony  of  a  similar  kind 
from  many  quarters ;  and  indeed.it  is  a  common  impression  among  the 
Armenians,  that  Mr.  S.  has  been  the  cause  of  all  those  prejudices  that  have 
sprung  up  against  us,  in  the  minds  of  men  who  were  formerly  friendly. 
Whence  did  this  impression  arise  It  surely  never  came  from  us;  and 
we  cannot  account  for  it,  except  on  the  supposition  that  there  is  something 
in  Mr.  S.’s  mode  of  speaking  to  them  in  regard  to  us,  that  leaves  such  an 
impression  on  their  minds.  Another  fact,  bearing  upon  this  same  point,  aud 
which  has  hitherto  been  unexplained,  is  this  ;  that  just  at  that  very  junc¬ 
ture  when  the  Herald  was  shown,  we  for  the  first  time  heard  from  some 
two  or  three  Armenians,  and  those  the  very  individuals  to  whom  Mr.  S. 
had  translated  the  paragraph,  such  chari^es  against  us  as  those  mentioned 
above,  viz.  that  we  are  Lutherans,  and  Calvinists,  and  have  no  ordination, 
and  are  dangerous  schismatics,  &(\ 

And  here  we  must  introduce  Mr.  Badger.  He  was  at  that  time  a  guest 
in  Mr.  Southgate’s  house,  and  had  been  for  months.  We  do  not  know,  and 
of  course  we  shall  not  undertake  to  say,  just  how  much  of  this  work  of 
vilification  was  done  by  Mr.  B.  and  how  much  by  Mr.  S.  But  the  ques¬ 
tion  is  brought  before  us  by  Mr.  S.’s  correspondence — Did  he  (Mr.  S  )  co¬ 
operate  with  Mr.  Badger  ?  And  on  this  point  w^e  think  the  evidence  is 
sufficient  to  convince  any  impartial  jury  in  the  world.  We  do  not  under¬ 
take  to  prove  that  Mr.  S.  sympathized  with  Mr.  B.  in  all  his  theological 
views,  or  that  he  was  ready  to  go  all  lengths  wfith  him  in  opposing  heresy. 
On  these  points,  we  are  not  sufficiently  informed  to  speak  with  any  cer¬ 
tainty,  nor  are  they  essential  to  our  present  inquiry.  Mr.  B.  came  out  from 
England  under  the  patronage  of  the  bishop  of  London  to  go  to  Mosul,  so 
far  as  appears,  for  the  express  purpose  of  counteracting  the  labors  of  the 
American  missionaries  there.  This  is  declared  by  the  editor  of  the  London 
Record  to  have  been  his  avowed  object ;  and  if  we  are  called  upon  for 
other  proof,  we  would  refer  to  his  w^hole  course  since  his  arrival  upon  the 
ground,  which  has  been  a  course  of  steady  and  determined  hostility  to  our 
mission.  The  evidences  in  the  case  are  already  in  the  hands  of  the  Com¬ 
mittee.  What  we  wish  to  direct  your  attention  to  in  this  place  is,  that  he 
came  originally  from  England  with  this  intention.  Like  Saul  of  Tarsus 
he  came  breathing  threatenings,  if  not  slaughter,  all  along  the  way,  against 
all  non-episcopal  missionaries.  This  man  Mr.  S.  received  into  his  house, 
and  kept  him  for  several  months,  while  at  the  same  time  he  was  perfectly 
well  informed  in  regard  to  his  spirit  and  intentions.!  We  have  it  from  a 
person  of  undoubted  veracity,  who  w^as  present  at  the  time,  that  Mr.  B.  de¬ 
clared  that  a  blow  was  preparing  for  the  American  missionaries,  which 
would  cause  them  to  repent  of  having  come  out  here  to  these  eastern 
churches. 

Now  we  have  apostolical  authority  for  saying  that  Mr.  S.,  by  treating 
Mr.  B.  in  this  friendly  manner,  actually  became  a  partaker  of  his  evil 
deeds.  For  John  says,  If  there  come  any  unto  you  and  bring  not  this 
doctrine,  receive  him  not  into  your  house,  neither  bid  him  God  speed;  for 
he  that  biddeth  him  God  speed,  is  partaker  of  his  evil  cleedsd^  It  is  useless 
for  Mr.  S.  to  say  that  he  opposed  some  of  the  views  and  plans  of  Mr.  B.,. 
for  if  he  did  so,  it  was  in  a  private  manner,  while  publicly,  before  all  the 
world,  he  acted  towards  him  as  a  confidential  friend.  Nor  will  any  rea¬ 
soning  convince  the  enlightened  public  that  he  did  not,  in  the  main,  coin¬ 
cide  with  Mr.  B.,  until  he  comes  out  with  an  express  and  unqualified  disa¬ 
vowal  of  such  a  coincidence.  Furthermore,  whatever  agency  Mr.  B.  had, 


*  An  Armenian,  who  by  some  means  learned  that  Mr.  Southgate  addressed  notes 
to  us  sometimes,  prefixing  the  title  of  Rev.  which  he  had  understood  was  given  to 
clergymen  alone,  expressed  the  greatest  astonishment  to  one  of  us,  as,  he  said,  Mr.  S. 
does  not  acknowledge  that  we  are  ordained. 

t  Mr.  S.  himselt  admits  Mr.  Badger's  hostility  to  the  American  missionaries,  and- 
that  it  was  a  topic  of  conversation  between  them. — Ej>. 


4J 


in  souring  the  minds  of  the  disaffected  Armenians,  was  exerted  while  at 
Mr.  S.’s  house,  and  it  will  be  difficult  to  convince  the  public  that  Mr.  S. 
did  not  introduce  Mr.  B.  to  those  Armenians,  and  interpret  for  him,  as  Mr. 

B.  was  an  entire  stranger  both  to  the  people  and  to  their  language. 

The  facts  now  stated,  it  is  conceived,  are  sufficient  to  establish  the  point 
with  which  we  started,  viz.  that  Mr.  S.  has  been  a  co-operator  with  Mr.  B. 
And  if  Mr.  S.  should  reply  that  while  these  facts  prove  a  co-operation, 
they  do  not  show  that  he  co-operated  against  us,  we  would  answer  that  we 
are  perfectly  willing  to  leave  this  question  also  to  be  decided  by  impartial 
public  sentiment.  We  conceive  that  it  will  be  difficult  for  him  to  satisfy 
any  reasonable  man,  that  having  so  many  points  of  intimate  connection 
with  Mr.  B.,  and  having  never  publicly  (if  in  any  way)  protested  against 
any  of  his  extravagancies,  he  regularly  parts  company  with  him  whenever 
he  begins  to  say  or  do  any  thing  against  the  missionaries  of  the  Board. 
Taking  into  view  all  that  we  know  of  Mr.  Southgate,  we  confess  that  we 
do  not  believe  it. 

We  had  intimated  in  our  second  letter  to  Mr.  S.  that  he  had  translated 
“disjointed  extracts  ”  from  the  article  in  the  Herald,  and  in  his  third  letter, 
he  positively  denies  this,  saying  that  he  translated  the  whole.  At  our  con¬ 
ference,  he  stated  distinctly,  and  we  all  remember  it  well,  that  he  translat¬ 
ed  only  a  part  of  the  article,  though  wffiat  part  we  did  not  learn.  After- 
w^ards,  however,  the  individual  to  wffiom  he  first  showed  the  journal  came, 
at  different  times,  to  two  of  our  houses,  and  the  wffiole  of  that  part  of  the 
article  referring  to  a  division  of  the  Armenian  church  was  read  to  him;  and 
when  w’^e  translated  that  portion  which  says  that  we,  the  missionaries, 
could  evidently  have  nothing  to  do  with  dividing  the  church,  he  was 
startled,  and  asked  with  earnestness  if  it  was  so  printed.  And  when  as¬ 
sured  that  it  was  precisely  so,  he  said  that  he  had  not  heard  that  before. 
This,  in  connection  with  Mr.  S.’s  own  assertion  at  the  conference,  led  us 
to  charge  him  with  translating  “disjointed  extracts”  from  our  journal,  and 
we  do  not  yet  see  reasons  to  retract  the  charge,  although  he  now  de¬ 
nies  it. 

We  would  also  say,  in  reference  to  the  paragraph  in  his  third  letter,  suc¬ 
ceeding  the  one  above  alluded  to,  that  we  actually  did  as  he  says  he  thinks 
we  were  in  duty  bound  to  do.  That  is,  we  did  make  known  to  you,  in  our 
history  of  the  conference  to  which  he  alludes,  that  he  declared  to  us  that 
he  did  not  show  the  Herald  from  any  bad  motive ;  and  also  that  he  did 
promise  to  make  an  effort  to  repair  the  injury  that  had  arisen  from  that  act. 
At  the  same  time  we  stated  that  we  were  not  satisfied  with  his  manner  of 
performing  his  promise,  nor  are  we  to  this  day. 

Mr.  S.  cannot  conceive  upon  what  you  based  your  public  charge  against 
him  of  being  the  chief  cause  of  the  suspension  of  our  meeting,  if  our  report 
of  the  affair  contained  a  fair  statement  of  his  declaration  of  innocent  inten¬ 
tion,  and  of  his  effort  to  prevent  injury.  The  fact  is,  that  his  subsequent 
conduct  did  not  increase  our  confidence  in  the  honesty  of  his  desire  to 
counteract  the  evil  he  had  done.  That  his  act  was  the  chief  proximate 
cause  of  the  suspension  of  the  meeting  is  perfectly  evident,  however  many 
remote  causes  may  have  had  to  do  indirectly  with  the  matter.  And  here 
we  must  refer  again  to  the  episcopal  correspondent  in  the  New  York  Ob¬ 
server,  who,  owing  to  an  imperfect  knowledge  of  the  facts,  has  made  some 
very  erroneous  statements  on  this  subject.  He  says,  that  “  for  a  long  time 
prior  to  any  act  on  the  part  of  the  authorities,  or  any  supposed  interffirence 
on  the  part  of  episcopal  missionaries,  serious  doubts  had  existed  in  the 
minds  of  the  most  sober  of  the  Armenians,  who  had  attended  the  instruc¬ 
tion  of  the  missionaries  of  the  American  Board,  as  to  their  influence  upon 
the  integrity  of  the  Armenian  church.”  And  again,  “That  a  suspension 
of  the  meetings  of  the  missionaries  of  the  American  Board  had  been  under 
discussion  among  the  Armeiiians  for  four  months  before  this  incident  oc¬ 
curred,  and  that  the  Armenians  have  ever  declared  that  the  information  re¬ 
ceived  concerning  the  article  in  the  Herald,  had  no  influence  whatever  in 
procuring  the  suspension  of  the  meetings.”  We  have  a  single  remark  to 


4-2 


make  in  respect  to  these  extracts,  which  is  that  there  is  hardly  one  w^ord 
of  truth  from  beginning  to  end,  though  we  have  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the 
writer  of  the  communication  believed  he  was  uttering  facts  when  he  penned 
the  article.  In  the  first  place  there  never  was  any  ‘‘  act  on  the  part  of  the 
authorities  ’’  suspending  our  meetings  ;  and  in  the  second  place  there  never 
could  have  been  a  discussion  among  the  Armenians,  in  regard  to  the  sus¬ 
pension  of  these  meetings,  for  they  had  it  not  in  their  power  to  suspend 
them ;  unless  the  writer  means  to  say  that  the  ecclesiastical  powers  of  the 
Armenian  church  were  debating  how  they  might  put  an  end  to  w^hat  is  so 
undesirable  in  their  eyes.  But  this  does  not  seem  to  be  his  meaning. 
The  meetings  were  suspended  by  ourselves  solely^  and  in  consequence  of 
the  excitement  occasioned  by  Mr.  Southgate’s  act.  It  is  true  we  felt  im¬ 
pelled  by  the  circumstances  to  take  this  step,  to  avoid  what  w^e  feared 
would  have  been  more  disastrous.  We  did  it  wdth  the  hope  of  allaying 
the  feelings  of  those  whom,  up  to  that  moment,  w’^e  had  regarded  as  breth¬ 
ren.  But  no  authority,  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  had  any  thing  whatever  to  do 
with  the  closing  of  our  preaching  service.  After  a  few  w’-eeks  suspension, 
we,  at  the  earnest  and  repeated  request  of  our  former  hearers,  re-opened 
the  service,  and  it  has  continuer!  from  that  time  to  the  present.  The  asser¬ 
tion  that  the  exposure  of  the  article  in  the  Herald  had  no  influence  what¬ 
ever  in  procuring  the  suspension  of  the  meetings,”  is  entirely  false.  As  we 
w^ere  voluntary  agents  in  suspending  the  meetings,  and  acted  in  the  matter 
in  view  of  certain  existing  circumstances,  we  may  be  supposed  to  be  at 
least  as  well  informed  as  any  body  else,  as  to  what  was  the  real  cause  of 
this  step,  and  our  own  reasons  for  taking  it ;  and  we  here  solemnly  de¬ 
clare  that  the  act  of  Mr.  S.,  in  showing  that  Herald  to  the  Armenians,  and 
the  misrepresentations  made  of  us  at  that  time  and  in  connection  with  that 
act,  were  the  immediate  cause  of  the  suspension.  The  great  excitement 
produced  on  that  occasion,  was  occasioned  by  that  act.  That  the  two  in¬ 
dividuals,  to  whom  he  showed  the  Herald,  were  previously  in  a  state  of 
mind  fitted  to  receive  a  bias  against  us,  we  are  quite  ready  to  believe ;  and 
if  Mr.  S.  was  aware  of  this,  as  we  conclude  he  was,  from  the  statement 
that  for  a  lo7ig  time  prior  to  this  event,  serious  doubts  had  existed  in  the 
minds  of  some  Armenians  in  regard  to  the  tendency  of  our  instructions, 
and  they  had  been  discussing  the  subject  of  suspending  the  meetings  for 
four  months  previously,  then  we  say  he  has  the  greater  sin. 


NOTE  I. 

Extracted  from  a  Letter  dated  Constantinople,  May  25,  1844. 

[This  letter  was  written  with  reference  to  a  letter  from  Mr.  Southgate  published  in 
the  “  Churchman  ”  of  Dec.  2d.  The  extracts  are  appended  as  Notes  to  the  letter  in 
reply  to  the  “  Vindication.'’] 

Mr.  Southgate  has  always  been  designated  by  his  Committee  as  a  mis¬ 
sionary,  or  delegate  to  the  Greeks  and  Jacobites,  and  they  have  carefully 
avoided  speaking  of  him  as  having  any  thing  to  do  with  the  Armenians  j 
thus  leaving  the  impression  on  the  public  mind,  that  the  episcopal  mission 
in  this  city  was  not  designed  to  interfere  with  the  mission  of  the  American 
Board,  whose  efforts,  it  is  well  known,  are  among  the  Armenians.  Mr.  S. 
himself  has  also  explicitly  declared  to  us,  that  he  had  no  intention  of  en¬ 
tering  the  Armenian  field;  although  he  once  gave  us  notice  that  some  la¬ 
bors  would  be  commenced  among  this  class  of  people,  in  an  entirely  differ¬ 
ent  department  from  any  occupied  by  us,  and  which  were  not  designed  as 
any  interference  with  our  field.  But  if  there  is  any  meaning  in  the  letter 
of  Mr.  S.,  extracted  from  above,  it  is  that  he  is  actually  laboring  in  the  same 
field  with  us  ;  for,  otherwise,  how  could  he  speak  of  his  superior  advantages, 
as  an  Episcopalian,  in  gaining  an  influence  with  the  people,  and  of  our  being 
unwilling  that  he  should  avail  him.self  of  these  advantages.  Surely  he 


43 


could  not  mean  to  say  that  we  have  complained  of  any  influence  that  he 
has  excited  against  us,  either  among  the  Greeks,  or  the  Jacobites,  for  we 
have  not  a  single  missionary  in  Constantinople,  sent  to  either  of  these  peo¬ 
ple.  This  very  letter,  therefore,  contains  a  tacit  acknowledgement  that  he 
is  endeavoring  to  gain  an  influence  among  the  Armenians. 

In  the  “  Spirit  of  Missions”  for  March,  1844,  there  is  a  journal  of  Mr. 
Southgate,  in  which  he  speaks  of  calls  received,  and  visits  made,  though 
not  only  are  the  names  of  the  individuals  alluded  to  concealed,  but  also  the 
nation  to  which  they  belong.  To  us  it  is  known  that  some  of  them,  and 
we  think  it  probable  that  most  of  them,  were  Armenians.  This  journal,  as 
he  says  himself,  is  only  given  as  a  specimen  of  his  constant  work,  and  it 
extends  through  the  period  of  only  one  week.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that 
this  intercourse  between  Mr.  S.  and  the  Armenians,  is  not  the  casual  inter¬ 
course  which  is  sometimes  to  be  expected,  between  a  missionary  and  in¬ 
dividuals  of  every  class  of  the  people  around  ;  but  it  is  a  studied  and  pre¬ 
viously  arranged  intercourse,  the  carrying  out  of  a  plan  of  labor  among 
the  Armenians.  We  beg  that  you  will  understand,  that  we  do  not  claim 
the  right  to  exclude  the  Episcopalians  from  the  Armenian  field,  though 
we  think  that  in  Christian  courtesy,  and  Christian  wisdom  too,  they  might 
leave  it  to  us ;  but  we  wish  to  have  the  fact  distinctly  known,  that  they 
are  attempting  to  cultivate  this  field,  though  they  carefully  conceal  it  from 
the  public  in  America. 


NOTE  II. 

Extracted  from  the  same  Letter. 

Mr.  Southgate  has  been  engaged  in  preparing  two  works  for  the  press, 
in  the  Armenian  language ;  viz.  The  Church  of  England  Prayer  Book,  and 
Nelson  on  Feasts  and  Fasts.  The  expenses  of  translating  and  printing  are 
defrayed  by  the  Christian  Knowledge  Society  of  England. 

In  his  preface  to  the  latter  book,  Mr.  S.  says,  that  many  people  in  this  part 
of  the  world  say  that  all  the  English  are  infidels,  and  that  they  have  no 
bishops,  no  feasts,  no  fasts,  no  book  of  prayers,  etc.,  and  that  this  book  will 
show  to  all  such  people  the  falseness  of  the  charge,  since,  in  fact,  all  these 
things  are  found  in  the  English  church.  But  he  cautions  his  readers 
against  the  supposition  that  all  Englishmen  have  the  same  ground  for  re¬ 
butting  the  charge  of  infidelity,  for  he  says,  There  are  Englishmen  who 
have  none  of  these  things,  but  they  do  not  belong  to  the  English  church.” 
Whether  they  are  good  men  or  bad,  he  does  not  say,  but  leaves  the  people 
to  draw  their  owm  inferences.  Some  have  already  told  us,  of  their  own  ac¬ 
cord,  that  they  understand  the  persons  referred  to  there  to  be  infidels, — 
which  is  a  very  natural  inference  from  Mr.  S.’s  language,  though  there  can¬ 
not  be  a  doubt  that  he  referred  to  those  who  are  not  Episcopalians,  and  he 
knew  when  he  wrote  it,  that  in  the  minds  of  many  of  his  readers,  we  should 
be  regarded  as  the  persons  referred  to.  Now  we  have  not  the  slightest  ob¬ 
jection  to  being  known  as  not  belonging  to  the  church  of  England,  though, 
in  bringing  the  pure  gospel  to  the  people,  we  cannot  see  the  expediency  of 
publishing,  first  of  all,  to  them  the  fact  that  que>tions  of  mere  external  in¬ 
terest  and  minor  points  do  divide  evangelical  Christians  in  England  and 
America.  Mr.  S.  has  been  careful  to  do  this  on  various  occasions,  and 
here,  in  the  very  first  book  he  has  brought  forth,  for  enlightening  the  peo¬ 
ple,  he  again  directs  their  attention  to  this  fact,  that  Protestant  Christians 
are  divided  in  sentiment !  And  not  only  so,  but  from  the  manner  in  which 
the  statement  is  made,  many  of  the  readers  of  the  book  will  suppose  him 
to  mean,  that  all  who  do  not  symbolize  with  the  English  church  are  in¬ 
fidels.” 

Mr.  S.  says  that  he  cannct  “conscientiously  conceal  the  fact  of  an  epis¬ 
copal  church  in  the  West,”  etc.  And  we  know  not  any  one  who  would 
wish  him  to  do  so  ;  but  is  Mr.  S.  as  conscientious  in  making  known  the 
precise  nature  and  grounds  of  the  difference  between  us,  as  he  is  in  pub¬ 
lishing  the  fact  itself'?  He  is  an  Episcopalian  and  we  are  not,  and  in  this 


44 


respect  he  certainly  can  claim  some  points  of  sympathy  v/ith  the  Eastern 
churches  which  we  cannot,  and  we  never  could  blame  him  for  makin;?  use 
of  his  “  advantages  ”  in  this  respect.  His  church  has  bishops  and  a  litur¬ 
gy,  and  so  have  the  Eastern  churches,  while  we  have  neither.  But  while 
Mr.  S.  has  felt  so  conscientiously  bound  to  make  use  of  his  superior  ad¬ 
vantages  ill  this  respect,  has  he  also  conscientiously  informed  the  people 
how  nearly  we  accord  with  the  standards  of  his  own  church,  in  all  the 
great  fundamental  points  of  doctrine?  Has  he  told  them  that,  as  to  the 
great  doctrine  of  man’s  ruined  state  by  nature,  of  the  necessity  of  regenera¬ 
tion  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  of  justification  by  faith  alone  without  the 
deeds  of  the  law,  etc  ,  our  views  are  the  same  with  those  expressed  in  his 
own  articles  of  faith  ?  On  the  contrary,  has  not  his  conscience  been  en¬ 
tirely  asleep  in  regard  to  our  rightful  claims  to  be  correctly  represented  by 
him,  (when  he  speaks  of  us  at  all,)  as  to  the  general  correctness  of  our 
faith,  and  has  he  not  in  fact  so  spoken  of  us  as  to  leave  the  impression  that, 
while  he  belongs  to  the  true  apostolic  church,  we  are  to  be  classed  among 
such  as  Arians,  heretics,  and  infidels.  We  do  not  assert  that  Mr.  S.  has 
actually  intimated  to  the  people  that  we  are  to  be  thus  ranked,  but  that  he 
has  actually  taken  advantage  of  their  ignorance,  and  of  their  prejudice,  and 
told  only  half  the  story  to  them,  so  as  to  leave  this  impression  on  their 
minds.  The  book  he  has  just  published  is  an  example  of  what  we  mean. 
He  has  there  laid  claim  to  belonging  to  the  apostolic  church,  having  bish¬ 
ops,  feasts,  fasts,  prayer-book,  etc.  And  he  declares  to  the  people  that  we 
have  none  of  these  things.  This  he  did  conscientiously,  in  order  to  make 
full  use  of  his  “advantage”  in  being  an  Episcopalian.  But  his  conscience 
led  him  no  farther.  He  did  not  add,  that  those  men  who  have  no  bishops, 
fasts,  or  prayer-book,  are  still  true  Christian  men,  who  receive  the  Bible  as 
their  only  guide,  and  as  to  the  great  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  their  belief  is 
in  the  main  correct.  He  chose  to  leave  the  people  to  imagine  for  them¬ 
selves  what  must  be  our  character,  and  this  he  did  well  knowing  that  their 
prejudices  would  inevitable  lead  them  to  call  us  infidels. 

NOTE  III. 

Extracted  from  the  same  Letter. 

Mr.  S.  says  in  the  letter  quoted,  that  a  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  we 
“  are  opposed  to  bishops  and  precomposed  forms  of  prayer,”  “would  be 
ruinous  to  us  among  the  eastern  Christians.”  We  have  already^  shown 
that  we  have  practised  no  concealment  of  our  sentiments  on  these  sub¬ 
jects  ;  but  let  us  now  look  at  the  matter,  from  the  point  of  view  assumed 
by  Mr.  S.  He  assf'rts  that  we  have  endeavored  carefully  to  conceal  from 
the  people  our  opinions  on  these  topics,  and  that  we  should  be  “  ruined,” 
provided  our  sentiments  were  known  ;  but  yet  he  publishes,  with  his  own 
mouth,  that  he  is  doing  his  best  to  make  known  to  all  the  people  these 
very  facts,  which,  according  to  him,  we  so  carefully  conceal,  and  which 
will  “ruin”  us  as  soon  as  they  are  known  !  Thus  he  is  willing  to  sacri¬ 
fice  us,  and  all  the  good  that  may  be  done  by  the  preaching  of  the  gospel, 
through  our  means,  for  the  sake  of  the  advantage  of  placing  himself  before 
the  people  as  belonging  to  a  church  that  has  bishops  and  a  liturgy  !  With 
his  eyes  fully’’  open  to  the  fact  that  the  course  he  is  pursuing  is  going  to 
prove  “  ruinous  ”  to  us,  (according  to  his  belief,)  he  still  perseveres,  and 
thus  shows  his  willingness  to  “ruin”  us,  merely  because  we  are  not  Epis¬ 
copalians,  even  though,  as  he  has  often  acknowledged,  we  preach  the  gos¬ 
pel  and  are  doing  good  !  Two  things  appear  very  obvious  from  this  de¬ 
claration  of  Mr.  S.,  first,  that  in  his  mind  Episcopacy  and  a  liturgy  are  far 
more  important  than  any  thing  else,  even  than  the  precious  doctrine  of 
Christ  and  him  crucihed ;  and  secondly,  that  he  has  resolved  to  take  such  a 
course  as  he  fully  believes  will  “ruin”  our  mission,  and  thus  he  virtually 
acknowledges  all  that  has  ever  been  charged  upon  him  in  regard  to  inter¬ 
fering  with  our  labors,  while  pursuing,  as  he  calls  it,  “  the  even  tenor  of 
his  way.” 


